Skip to main content

Full text of "A treatise on the grammar of New Testament Greek, regarded as a sure basis for New Testament exegesis;"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

University of Toronto 

T, and T. ClarJcs Piiblicatmis. 

Ill Twenty Hamhome 8ro Volumes, SuRSCUiPTlON Price £5, 5s., 


Commentary on the l\lew Testament. 

' Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the German 
expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is 
unrivalled as an interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of the sacred 
writers. The Publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important service to 
English students in producing this translation.'— G'uarrfian. 

(Yearly Issue of Four Volumes, 218.) 
Each Volume will be sold separately at (on an average) lOs. Gd. to Xon-Subscribers. • 



By Dr. H. A. W. MEYER, 

Oberconsistorialrath, Hannover. 

The portion contributed by Dr. Meyer has been placed under the editorial 
care of Rev. Dr. Dickson, Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow ; 
Rev. Dr. Crombie, Professor of Biblical Criticism, St. Mary's College, St. 
Andrews ; and Rev. Dr. Stewart, Professor of Biblical Criticism, University 
of Glasgow. 

1st Year — Romans, Two Volumes. 

Galatians, One Volume. 

St. John's Gospel, Vol. I. 
2d Year— St. John's Gospel, Vol. II. 

Philippians and Colossians, One Volume. 

Acts of the Apostles, Vol. I. 

Corinthians, Vol. I. 
3d. Year— Acts of the Apostles, Vol. II. 

St. Matthew's Gospel, Two Volumes. 

Corinthians, Vol. II. 
4th Year — Mark and Luke, Two Volumes. 

Ephesians and Philemon, One Volume. 

Thessalonians. (Dr. Liinemann.) 
5th Year-Timothy and Titus. {Dr. Hnther.)} ^ j^^ ^;^^,.^; 

Peter and Jude. [Dr. Huther.) ) '' 

Hebrews. (Dr. Liniemann.) ) Second Issiif. in ijrepara- 

James and John. (Dr. Huther.)\ tion. 

Tlie series, as written by Meyer himself, is completed by the publication of Ephesians 
with Philemon in one volume. But to this the Publishers have thought it rigid to add 
Thessalonians and Hebrews, by Dr. Liinemann, and the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles, 
by Dr. Huther. 

' I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned com- 
mentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout ; and I must again, 
as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholar- 
ship of the learned editor.' — Bishop Ellicott in Preface to his ' Commentary on Ephesians.^ 

' The ablest grammatical exegete of the age.' — Philip Schaff, D.D. 

'In accuracy of scholarship and freedom from prejudice, he is equalled by few.' — 
Literary Churchmun. 

' "We have only to repeat that it remains, of its own kind, the very best Commentary 
of the New Testament which we possess.' — Church Bells. 

' No exegetical work is on the whole more valuable, or stands in higher public esteem. 
As a critic he is candid and cautious; exact to minuteness in philology ; a master of the 
grammatical and historical method of interpretation.' — Princeton Review. 

T, arid T. Clark's Publicatioris. 

Just published, in demy 4ito, Third Edition, price 2bs., 






' Dr. Creraer's work is highly and deservedly esteemed in Germany. It gives with 
care and thoroughness a complete history, as far as it goes, of each word and phrase 
that it deals with. . . . Dr. Cremer's explanations are most lucidly set out.' — Guai'dian. 

'It is hardly possible to exaggerate the value of this work to the student of the Greek 
Testament. . . . The translation is accurate and idiomatic, and the additions to the 
later edition are considerable and important.' — Church Bells. 

' A valuable addition to the stores of any theological library. ... It is what it claims 
to be, a Lexicon, both biblical and theological, and treats not only of words, but of the 
doctrines inculcated by those words.' — John Bull. 

' We very heartily commend this goodly volume to students of biblical literature.' — 
Evangelical Magazine. 

'We cannot find an important word in our Greek New Testament which is not 
discussed with a fulness and discrimination which leaves nothing to be desired,' — 

' Cremer's Lexicon is, and is long likely to be, indispensable to students whether of 
theology or of the Bible, and must always bear witness to his scholarship, erudition, and 
diligence.' — Expositor. 

' A work of immense erudition.' — Freeman. 

' This noble edition in quarto of Cremer's Biblico-Theological Lexicon quite super- 
sedes the translation of the first edition of the work. Many of the most important 
articles have been re- written and re-arranged. . . . We heartily congratulate Mr. Urwick 
on the admirable manner in which he has executed his task, revealing on his part 
adequate scholarship, thorough sympathy, and a fine choice of English equivalents and 
definitions.' — British Quarterly Review. 

' As an aid in our search, we warmly commend the honest and laborious Now 
Testament Lexicon of Dr. Cremor.' — London Quarterly Review. 

' The judiciousness and importance of Dr. Cremer's design must be obvious to all 
students of the New Testament; and the execution of that design, in our judgment, fully 
establishes and justifies the translator's encomiums.' — Watchman. 

'A majestic volume, admirably printed and faultlessly edited, and will win gratitude 
as well as renown for its learned and Chribtian Author, and prove a precious boon to 
students and preachers who covet exact and exhaustive acquaintance with the literal 
find tli(!ological teaching of the New Testament.' — Dickinson's Theological Quarterly. 

T. and T. Clark's Publications, 


(^Subscription price^ mtt)^ 15s. each. 


Specially designed and adapted for the use of Ministers and Students. By- 
Prof. John Peter Lange, D.D., in connection with a number of eminent 
European Divines. Translated, enlarged, and revised under the general 
editorship of Rev. Dr. Philip Schaff, assisted by leading Divines of the various 
Evangelical Denominations. 


IX. THE PSALMS. By Carl Bernhardt 
Moll, D.D. With a new Metrical Version 
of the Psalms, and Philological Notes, by T. 


I. GENESIS. With a General Introduc- 

tion to the Old Testament. By Prof. J. P. 
Lange, D.D. Translated from the German, 
with Additions, by Prof. Tatler Lewis, 
LL.D., and A. Gosman, D.D. 

II. EXODUS. By J. P. Lakge, D.D. 
LEVITICUS. By J. P. Lange, D.D. With 


NUMBERS. Bv Prof. J. P. Lange, D.D. 
DEUTERONOBTY. By W. J. Schkoeder. 

IV. JOSHUA. By Rev. F. R. Fay. JUDGES 
and RUTH. By Prof. Paulus Cassell, D.D. 

V. SAMUEL, I. and II. 
Erdmann, d.d. 



By Professor 
By Karl Chr. W. F. Bahr, 

ZÖCKLER. EZRA. By Fr. W. Schultz. 
NEHEMIAH. Bv Rev. Howard Crosby, 
D.D., LL.D. ESTHER. By Fk. W. Schultz. 

VIII. JOB. With an Introduction and 

Annotations by Prof. Tatler Lewis, LL.D. 
A Commentary by Dr. Otto Zockler, to- 
jcether with an Introductory Essay on Hebrew 
Poetiy by Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D. 

X. PROVERBS. By Prof. Otto Zockler, 
D.D. ECCLESLASTES. By Prof. 0. Zock- 
ler, D.D. With Additions, and a new 
Metrical Version, by Prof. Tayler Lewis, 
Prof. 0. Zockler, D.D. 

XL ISAIAH. By C. W. E. Naegelsbach. 

XIL JEREMLAH. By C W. E. Naegels- 
E. Naegelsbach, D.d. 

XIIL EZEKIEL. By F. W. Schröder. 
D.D. DANIEL. By Professor Zockler, 

JOEL, and AMOS. By Otto Schmoller, 
Ph.D. OBADIAH and MICAH. By Rev. 
Paul Klein ert. JONAH, NAHUM, 
Paul Kleinert. HAGGAI. By Rev. James 
Chambers, D.D. MALACHI. By Joseph 
Packard, D.D. 

THE APOCRYPHA. (Just published.) By E. C. Eissell, D.D. One Volume. 


I. MATTHEW. With a General Intro- 
duction to the New Testament. By J. P. 
Lange, D.D. Translated, with Additions, by 
Philip Schaff, D.D. 

IL MARK. By J. P. Lange, D.D. LUKE. 
By J. J. Van Oosterzee. 

in. JOHN. By J. P. Lange, D.D. 

IV. ACTS. By G. V. Lechler, D.D., and 
Rev. Charles Gerok. 

V. ROMANS. By J. P. Lange, D.D., and 

Rev. F. R. Fay. 

VI. CORINTHIANS. By Christian F. 


VIL GALATIANS. By Orro Schmoller, 
By Karl Braune, D.D. PHILIPPIANS. 
By Karl Braune, D.D. 

J. Van Oosterzee, D.D. TITUS. By J. J. 
Van Oosterzee, ü.D. PHILEMON. By J. 
J. Van Oosterzee. D.D. HEBREWS. By 
Karl B. Moll, D.D. 

IX. JAMES. By J. P. Lange, D.D., and 
J. J. Van Oo.sterzee, D.D. PETER and 
JUDE. By G. F. C. FRONMrtLER, Ph.D. 
JOHN. By Karl Braune, D.D. 


Dr. J. P. Lange. Together with double 
Alphabetical Index to all the Ten Volumes 
on the New Testament, by John H. Woods. 

T. and T, Clark's Publications. 

Just published^ in demy 8t'o, price 8s. 6d., 



5Eran0latet( from U)e ^igotfj €r£rtnan 6tiition 


' The work stands unique as regards a patient investigation of facts, written with a 
profound analysis of the laws of thought, of which language is the reflection. Another 
striking feature of the work is the regularly progressive order which pervades the 
whole. The Author proceeds by a natural gradation from the simplest elements to the 
most complex forms.' — British Quarterly Review. 

' To more advanced students of Hebrew the translation of Ewald's Syntax will be a 
great boon. . . . We hope the translation will do much to advance the higher, more 
thorough study of Hebrew.' — Watchman. 

'It is well known that Ewald was the first to exhibit the Hebrew Syntax in a 
philosophical form, and his Grammar is the most important of his numerous works.' — 
A ihenxum. 

'The book is the product of genuine work, and will fill a gap in our theological 
literature.' — Daily Review. 

Recently published^ in demy 8vo, Fourth Edition^ price Is. Qd., 


By a. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D., 

Professor of Hebrew, etc., in the New College, Edinburgh. 

In One large Svo Volume, Ninth English Edition, price 15.f., 


Translated from the German of Dr. G. B. WINER. 

With large additions and full Indices. Third Edition. Edited by Rev. W. 
F. MoULTON, D.D., one of the New Testament Translation Revisers. 

' This series is one of great importance to the biblical scholar ; and, as regards its 
general execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.' — Edinburgh Review. 



In 27 Volumes, demy Svo. 

MERRRR. CLAKK have resolved to offer complete sets of tin's work at the Original 
SubBcription Trice of £7, 2s. Od. Single volumes may be had, price 10s. Gd. 


ox THE 









• Emo 








BY DR. g/ B: WINER. 

Kxnmhitti from l^c German, faiit^ ^^^t '^Wiihns nn^ ^ttll |iibicts, 

^ BY 

REV, W.'^^k^koULTON, KA., D.D, 






18 82. 







I HAD hoped that I might be able to show my gratitude for 
the unexpected kindness of the welcome accorded to this 
work, by seeking to render it much more worthy of the 
acceptance of students ; but the extreme pressure of other 
duties has compelled me to relinquish this hope for the pre- 
sent. It will be found that this edition is in the main a 
reprint of the first. The chief point of difference is the intro- 
duction into the text of all the new matter left by Winer for 
the seventh edition of the original work. A few paragraphs 
which I had previously abridged (see below, p. xiii.) are now 
given in full. Whilst, however, but few substantial changes 
have been made, both text and notes have been carefully 
revised. In the notes on Part II. (the Accidence) many 
slight alterations have been found necessary in order to bring 
the statements into accord with the best critical texts of the 
New Testament. Here, especially, I have to express my very 
great obligations to Professor Westcott and Dr. Hort for their 
kindness in allowing me the free use of their (in my judgment 
invaluable) edition of the text — soon, I trust, to be given to 
the world. 

The very frequent references to Alexander Buttmann's 
Grammar of the New Testament Greek are in this edition 
adapted to the excellent translation by Professor Thayer, 


whose careful edition of Winer's Grammar has also been of 
much service. 

As great care has been taken to avoid, as far as possible, 
any interference with the paging of the book, almost all 
references to the former edition will still be found correct. 

Cambridge, 2lst October 1876. 


The merits of Winer's Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 
Sprachidioms are so well known and so freely acknowledged, 
that it would be unbecoming in me to detain the reader by 
any lengthened remarks on the work, or on the subject of 
which it so fully treats. I shall therefore confine myself to 
a brief statement of the objects which have been kept in view 
in the present translation, and of the way in which I have 
sought to attain them. 

When I was requested by Messrs. Clark to undertake this 
work, the translation published by them in 1859 was placed at 
my disposal. I have without hesitation availed myself of the 
liberty thus accorded, as the existence of common matter in 
the two editions will show ; but the present is, in the most 
literal sense, a new translation, in the execution of which all 
accessible sources of help have been freely resorted to. Besides 
the edition just specified, the American translation by Messrs. 
Agnew and Ebbeke (Philadelphia, 1840) has sometimes been of 
service. Perhaps an apology is necessary for what will seem to 
some an excessive adherence to German structure and phraseo- 
logy in certain paragraphs. If I have erred in this respect, it 
has been from a conviction that the nature of the book required 
unusual literalness of rendering, and that in some instances it 
was almost impossible to depart from the original form and at 
the same time preserve the meaning with technical exactness. 

In deference to a strongly expressed opinion on the part 
of some whose judgment deserved respect, I have in a few 
instances ventured on a slight abridgment of the original, and 
have omitted a few references of little or no importance. At 
the foot of the page will be found a detailed statement of all 
the omissions I have made.^ 

^ Winer's account of the New Testament Grammars of Pasor and Haab, and 
his relation of the disputes between the Purists and the Hebraists, I have con- 
densed about one-half. I have not thought it necessary to retain all the 
references to certain authors who engaged in the Purist controversy, viz. , Georgi 
( Vindicice and Hierocriticus Sacer), Schwarz {Commentarii and ad Olearium), 


All references to passages in the Old and New Testaments 
have been carefully verified. In each case, whether the passage 
is quoted at length, or merely indicated by chapter and verse, 
I have examined the reading. Variations which do not touch 
the question under consideration I have not thought it neces- 
sary to notice; but I trust that all instances in which a 
difference of reading affects the appositeness of the quotation 
are pointed out in my notes. Much labour would have been 
saved had it been possible to follow Winer's example, and abide 
(in the main) by the text of some particular edition of the Greek 
Testament. As this could not be done, the only alternative 
was to follow the reading which appeared to be most generally 
received by recent editors, referring expressly to conflicting 
opinions only in cases of special difficulty or importance. I 
have given most weight to Tischendorf, as Winer had done ; 
and, wherever it was possible, have quoted from his eighth 
edition, now in course of publication. Before the completion 
of the Gospels in this edition, my references were made to 
his Synopsis Evangelica (ed. 2, 1864), which gave the only 
indication of his judgment as modified by the Codex Sinaiticus. 
If this MS. has in other parts of the New Testament confirmed 
the reading of his seventh edition (1859), I have sometimes 
ventured to quote this reading as Tischendorfs, without further 
qualification: otherwise, the edition is expressly stated. A 
considerable portion of this book was already in type when 
the fourth and fifth parts of his eighth edition and the fourth 
part of TregeUes' Greek Testament appeared. I need hardly 
say that Scrivener's collations of the texts of Lachmann and 
Tischendorf and of the Codex Sinaiticus have proved of essen- 
tial service in this portion of my work.^ In quotations from 
the Septuagint I have used Tischendorf 's text (ed. 3, 1860) as 
the standard of comparison ; when the readings of the leading 
MSS. differ in such a way as to affect the quotation, I have 
noted the variation. I may add, that in the numbering of 
the Psalms the Septuagint is followed throughout, unless the 
Hebrew text is under notice : Winer's practice was not uni- 
form. In instances such as that just specified, and in many 
others where a correction was obviously needed, I have altered 
Winer's figures without calling attention to the change. 

It has not been in my power to carry the work of verifica- 
tion as far as I could have wished. A marked characteristic 
of Winer's Grammar is the number of its references to com- 

Palairet, Pfocheri, Solanus, Fischer {ad Leusden. Dial), or to Pasor's Grammar. 
In one place (p. 123, note 3) a note is abridged, and the tith's oi" works cpioted are 
slightly curtailed. With these exceptions, the whole of tlie original is reproduced. 
^ When the ' received text ' which Winer (quotes dill'ers from the text of 
Stephens, I have referred to it as * Elz. ;' otherwise, as * liec' 


mentaries on classical writers. To many of the works cited 
I could not obtain access ; and I confess tliat, judging from 
those quotations which I was able to verify, I cannot feel that 
I should have conferred much benefit on the student if I had 
succeeded in examining the whole : in most instances I have 
removed such references from the text into the notes, for the 
convenience of the reader. On the other hand, it has been my 
aim to secure all possible accuracy and completeness where 
standard grammatical authorities are cited. Every reference 
to the Greek Grammars of Buttmann (Aus/. Sprachlehre), 
Bernhardy, IMatthiie, and IMadvig, Zumpt's Latin Grammar, 
Hermann's edition of Viger, Lobeck on Phrynichus, Lobeck's 
Paralipomena, and Klotz's Commentary on Devarius, has been 
carefully examined. The references to Eost's Grammatik and 
to K. W. Krliger's Sprachlehre have been altered so as to suit 
the most recent editions. In the case of Madvig, Matthia3, and 
Zumpt, it seemed best to substitute sections for pages, that the 
reference might hold good both for the original works and for 
the English translations. In the sections on irregular and 
defective verbs, I have usually given references to Fishlake's 
translation of Buttmann, in the place of those which Winer 
gives to the original work : where the matter was not the 
same (i.e., where Lobeck's observations w^ere important), I have 
given both. 

In the additions I have made to the German work — which, 
independently of Indices, etc., constitute about one-sixth 
of this book — my main objects have been the following : — 
(1.) To supplement the author's statements, and bring them 
into accordance with the present state of our knowledge. 
(2.) To show under the different heads of the subject how 
much may be regarded as settled, and how much is still dis- 
puted border-land. (3.) By means of continuous references to 
English writers on Greek grammar and on New Testament 
Greek, to place the English reader in the position occupied by 
one who uses the original. (4.) To call further attention to 
the many striking coincidences between Modern Greek and 
the language in which the New Testament is written. No 
one can feet more keenly than myself that I have not fully 
succeeded in my endeavours ; but I have spared no pains or 
effort to attain success, so far as it lay within my reach. 

To assert that the original work is in many particulars 
below the standard of our present knowledge, is no more 
than to say that the last ten or twenty years, distinguished 
as they have been by so much zealous and accurate study of 
the Greek Testament, have not passed without yielding some 
fruit. The German scholars to whom we owe so heavy a 


debt of gi^titude for their persistent and successful effort to 
obtain for New Testament Greek the scientific treatment which 
was its due, have left worthy successors both in their own 
countr}' and in England. Of my deep obligations to some of 
our English scholars I shall subsequently speak in detail. 

The edition of this Grammar which appeared in Germany 
in 1867. under the editorship of Dr. G. Liinemann of Göttin- 
gen, differs very slightly from the sixth edition, which is the 
basis of the present translation. The very scanty additions 
relate entirely to points of detail. As I was not at liberty 
to make use of these additions, I have carefully abstained 
from seeking any assistance from them : in many instances, 
however, they were already included in the matter I had 
myself supplied. I cannot part from this edition without 
expressing my surprise that a scholar of Dr. Liiuemann's 
reputation should have left so many mistakes in the text, 
and should have contributed so little to the improvement of 
the great work with the care of which he had been entrusted. 

By far the most important work on the grammar of New 
Testament Greek which has appeared during the last fourteen 
years is the G-ramiiiatik des luutestamcntlichen Sprachgebrauchs 
by Alexander Buttmann (Berlin, 1859). The form which the 
author has chosen for his work is that of an appendix to 
his father's (Philip Buttmann's) Griechische Grammatik. The 
theoretical advantages of this plan cannot be doubted, as the 
grammarian is no longer required to concern himself with the 
usages of ordinary Greek, but is at liberty to his atten- 
tion to what is peculiar in Hellenistic usage. On the other 
hand, the inconveniences which beset the practical use of the 
book, in the case of those who are unfamiliar with the particular 
(xrammar chosen as the standard, are sufficientlv ^reat to detract 
seriously from the usefulness of a most valuable work. As 
this peculiarity of plan seemed to render it unlikely that A. 
Buttmann's Grammar would be translated, I have been the 
]aore anxious to place the most important of its contents 
within the reach of the English reader. There is a difference 
between the general tendencies shown by the writers of the 
two Grammars, which makes it especially useful to compare 
their treatment of the same subject. Winer, never perliaps 
entirely free from the influence of the period in which he 
began to \mte, when it was above all things necessary to 
convince the world that New Testament Greek had a right 
to claim scientific investigation, seems inclined at times to 
extenuate the difference between New Testament usage and 
that of classical writers. His successor, coming forward when, 
on the main question, the victory is already won^ is able to 


concede much that once it seemed important to dispute ; and 
indeed, unless 1 am mistaken, frequently <^^oes to an extreme 
in this kind of generosity. For this and other reasons, I have 
sometimes exhibited in detail Buttmann's general treatment of 
an important point, believing that a comparison of the two 
writers would do more than anything else to illustrate the real 
character of the question. My notes will show that I have 
made great use of A. Buttmann's work ; but I have frequently 
received suggestions where I have not had to acknowledge 
direct assistance. I am bound, however, in justice to myself, 
to say that, unless the writer's w^ords are distinctly quoted, the 
statement made in my note rests on my own responsibility, 
Buttmann's observations having merely served as the basis of 
my own investigation. 

I wish I could join in the commendation which has been 
bestowed on Schirlitz's Grundzüge der neutest. G-räcität (Giessen, 
1861) ; but I would gladly save others the disappointment 
which the study of this work caused myself. To represent it 
as an independent work is really to do it the greatest injustice. 
For the most part, Schirlitz servilely follows Winer — in many 
instances copying the very order of his examples and remarks, 
and sometimes even reproducing obvious mistakes. There is 
very little evidence of independent judgment or research. The 
general arrangement of the book, how^ever, is clear and useful : 
unfortunately, the advantage which is gained by presenting 
received results, disentangled from the arguments by which 
they have been sustained, is to a great extent sacrificed by 
the introduction of irrelevant matter (e.g., on the meanings of 
Hebrew proper names, etc.) belonging to the lexicon, and not 
to a treatise on grammar. I have further consulted Beelen's 
Latin version of the 5th edition of Winer's Grammar (Lou vain, 
1857), but not with much advantage. My obligations to K. 
H. A. Lipsius' G-rammat. Untersuchungen (Leipsic, 1863) are 
acknowdedged in the following pages. 

Of German commentators, Meyer has justly received the 
largest share of my attention ; partly on account of the general 
merits of his masterly Commentary, and partly because his 
successive editions take up and discuss every fresh contribution 
to the grammatical study of the language of the New Testa- 
ment. I have, of course, made but few references to the 
writers already laid under contribution by Winer himself, as 
De Wette and others : where, however, new editions have 
been issued, I have often availed myself of their assistance. 
In cases where Winer quotes from a German work, or from a 
book wdiich is not readily accessible, I have frequently sought 
to help the reader by supplying the pith of the quotation, 


especially where Winer has chosen this mode of indicating his 
own opinion of a passage. My aim has heen to make myself 
acquainted wdth everything of importance which has lately 
appeared in Germany in connexion with the subject of this 
book ; and I trust the reader will not discover any omissions of 
a serious character. 

To English works I have referred much more freely, as it has 
been a leading object with me to provide English readers with 
all the helps supplied by Winer to his countrymen. Whilst 
occasional references are made to a number of Grammars, 
Jelf's and Donaldson's are quoted systematically, as our leading 
English authorities. I may here observe that, with the ex- 
ception of an occasional citation of Liddell and Scott or Eost 
and Palm in the place of Passow, these references to Jelf 
and Donaldson are the only additions of my own which are 
incorporated with the text. My regular practice has been to 
distinguish added matter by square brackets, — thus [ ] ; but 
in the instances just specified the convenience of the reader 
seemed best served by a departure from strict uniformity. It is 
not necessary for me here to mention all the works of English 
scholars which are quoted in my notes. I have attached 
most importance to references to works of a distinctively 
grammatical character ; but have striven to show my high sense 
of the value which belongs to many recent English editions of 
classical authors, by frequently directing the reader to their 
pages. I fear it will be held that I ought either to have done 
more, or not to have made the attempt ; I could not, however, 
refrain from giving this kind of practical expression to the 
interest with which I have studied the notes of Shilleto, Paley, 
Jebb, Eiddell, Sandys, and others. 

Every page of this book will show how greatly I am indebted 
to our foremost English writers on New Testament Greek. The 
excellent treatises expressly devoted to the subject by Mr. 
Green and Mr. Webster I have used extensively ; the latter, 
from the nature of its plan, is less frequently quoted than the 
former. I have very rarely neglected an opportunity of making 
use of the Commentaries of Professor Lightfoot and Dean 
Alford ; and most grate I'uUy do I acknowledge the assistance I 
have received from them throughout my work. My hearty 
thanks are due to the Rev. Dr. Dickson, Professor of Biblical 
Criticism in the University of Glasgow, and to the Rev. R. 
Hellier of Headingley, for the kind interest they have dis- 
played in my undertaking, and for some useful suggestions. I 
have left until the last the name which is, and must remain, 
the first in my thoughts, whether they are resting on the 
present work or on my Greek Testament studies in general. 


The ineasiivo of my obliu^ntioii to tlio Bishop of Gloucester and 
liristol, M'lio lias generously permitted me to associate his name 
with this book, it is altogether out of my power to express. I 
feel sensitively that whatever I have done is unworthy of such 
an association ; but if this book succeed in accomplishing 
anything for the accurate study of the Greek Testament, it 
will be through what I have learned from Bishop Ellicott's wise 
counsels, and from his noble Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles. 

I trust that the plan upon which I have made use of the 
various authorities now specified will commend itself to the 
judgment of my readers. 1 may perhaps anticipate an objec- 
tion which may be raised, to the effect that the quotation of 
many opinions upon any subject tends to produce confusion, 
Avhereas the usefulness of a Grammar depends much on the 
directness and uniformity of its teaching. I am so far alive to 
the force of this objection, that I am inclined to think an 
amount of doG^matism and indifference to the views of others 
may for a time increase the teacher's power, and thus prove 
beneficial to the student. But, to say nothing of the effect 
which may be produced by the discovery that the teacher had 
spoken with equal confidence of the certain and of the question- 
able, the decisive tone of an independent work would have 
been strangely out of place if here assumed by me. My desire 
is to show where those scholars who best represent the present 
state of knowledge and opinion are in accord, and what points 
are still under discussion. I should be sorry to lie under the 
imputation of indefiniteness of opinion, when. I have felt 
compelled to present conflicting views. I am convinced that 
clearly to state the amount of divergence which exists is to 
do something^ towards the removal of it. I have tried to bear 
in mind that this book may fall into the hands of different 
classes of readers, and have sometimes ventured to add an 
explanation w^hich to many will seem superfluous, for the sake 
of inexperienced students. Where the author makes a state- 
ment which appears to me erroneous, in regard to matters of 
greater importance than details of language, I have usually 
appended a reference to some standard work containing an 
adequate answer or correction. 

The only other subject requiring comment in connexion 
with the notes to this edition is the prominence which I 
have given to Modern Greek. I am persuaded that English 
scholars wdll not consider that I have gone too far in calling 
attention to its peculiarities in a work on New Testament 
Greek :^ if I were commencing my task anew, I should attempt 

* See an interesting article in the current number of the Journal of Philology 
(vol. ii. pp. 161-196). 


to do much more in this way than I have done. The Grammars 
referred to are those of ]\Iullach {Grammatik der griechischen 
Vidgars-prache in historischer Entivicklung : Berlin, 1856), J. 
Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1853), Sophocles (Boston, 1860), and 
occasionally Lüdemann's Lehrhuch (Leipsic, 1826). 

Much labour has been spent upon the Indices. To the 
three contained in the German work (each of which is more 
than doubled in size) I have added a fourth, containing the 
principal passages from the Old Testament noticed in the book. 
The fulness of the Index of Subjects will, it is hoped, supply 
the want of more frequent references between the various 
parts of the work. ... A Table of Authors cited, with dates, 
seemed especially desirable in a work like the present, which 
contains quotations from so wide a range of writers, flourishing 
at periods 2000 years apart. I have taken pains to secure 
accuracy in the dates. As a general rule, I have chosen for the 
' floruit ' of an author a point about mid-way between his 
entrance on manhood and the close of his life. I am here 
most largely indebted to Müller and Donaldson's History of 
the Literature of Greece, Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Biography, 
and Engelmann's Bihliotheca Scriptorum Classicorum. The 
notices contained in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon have been 
compared throughout : I must, however, confess myself unable 
to understand on what principle some of the dates are assigned. 

Through various circumstances, I have been placed at a 
disadvantage in the correction of the proofs, and must beg the 
indulgence of the reader for the mistakes which will be found. 
Most of these, I trust, are noticed in the table of Errata ; but 
it did not seem necessary to swell that list by including those 
errors (e.g., in the division of words) which are merely blemishes, 
and cannot lead any one astray. 

I have extended these introductory remarks beyond the 
limit I had assigned myself. I will only add the expression 
of my earnest prayer, that He who can use for His glory the 
I'eeblest work of man may grant that mine may be instru- 
mental in leading some to a fuller knowledge of His inspired 


Richmond, January 7, 1870. 


When this Grammar first appeared, in 1822, the object pro- 
posed was, to check the unbounded arbitrariness with which the 
language of the New Testament had so long been handled in 
Commentaries and exegetical prelections, and, so far as the 
case admitted, to apply the results of the rational philology, as 
obtained and diffused by Hermann and his school, to the Greek 
of the New Testament It was in truth needful that some 
voice should be raised which might call to account the deep- 
rooted empiricism of the expositors, and might strive to rescue 
the New Testament writers from the bondage of a perverted 
philology, which, while it styled itself sacred, showed not the 
slightest respect for the sacred authors and their well-considered 

The fundamental error — the 'jrpcjTov yjrevBc^ — of this biblical 
philology, and consequently of the exegesis which was based 
upon it, really consisted in this, that neither the Hebrew 
language nor the Greek of the New Testament was regarded 
as a livinf/ idiom (Hermann, Eurip. Med. p. 401), designed for 
a medium of human intercourse. Had they been so regarded, 
— had scholars always asked themselves whether the deviations 
from the established laws of language, which were assumed to 
exist in the Bible to so enormous an extent, were compatible 
with the destination of a human language for the practical 
uses of life, they would not have so arbitrarily considered 
everything allowable, and taken pleasure in ascribing to the 
apostles in nearly every verse an enallage, or use of the wrong 
form in the plcoce of the right. If we read certain Commentaries 
still current of the eisrhteenth and nineteenth centuries — for 
the older works of the period of the Eeformation are almost 
entirely free from such perverseness — we must conclude that 


the peculiar cliai\acteristic of the jSTew Testament language is an 
utter want of definiteness and regularity. I'or the expositors 
are continually pointing out instances of the use of a wrong 
tense, or a wrong case, or the comparative instead of the posi- 
tive, — of o for Tt9, hut instead of for, therefore for hecause, on 
the other side for 07i this side, the relative for the sii^n of the 
apodosis (Isa. viii. 20^). Amidst such erudition on the part 
of tlie interpreter, the reader becomes almost indignant at the 
unskilfulness of the sacred writers, who knew so little how to 
deal with words. One cannot conceive how such men could 
make themselves even generally intelligible in their oral dis- 
courses, in which this lawlessness of language must certainly 
have appeared in still stronger relief. Still more difficult is 
it to understand how they won over to Christianity a large 
number of educated men. Whilst, however, this play with 
pro and idem quod has a laughable, it has also a serious aspect. 
Does not Scripture — as a great philologer remarked long ago — 
thus become like a waxen nose, which a man may twist any 
way he pleases, in proportion to the scantiness of his knowledge 
of language ? Would it have been impossible, or even difficult, 
for such a man as Storr, for example, had the task been assigned 
to him, to find in the words of the apostles any meaning 
which he pleased ? And is such a view of the New Testament 
language compatible with the dignity of sacred writers ? ^ 

We should regard as simply devoid of understanding any 
man who, in the ordinary intercourse of life, could so pervert 
language as to say, * I shall come to you to-day,' instead of ' I 
have come,' etc. ; ' No prophet has arisen out of Galilee,' for 
'No prophet shall arise out of Galilee' (John vii. 52) ; 'I call 
you no longer servants,' for ' I called you not merely servants ' 
(John XV. 15); 'For Jesus himself testified that a prophet 
hath no honour in his own country,' for ' Although Jesus him- 
self testified,' etc. (John iv. 44) ; 'I saw tlie forest with mag- 

' [In this verse some regard 1{^{< as introducing the apodosis, and therefore 

leave it untranslated (in Englisli) : tlius Henderson (after Gescnius), 'There 
shall be no dawn to tlieni.' Winer, witli Ewald, renders the verse : Ad legem 
revertamur, ita profeoto dicent, (^uibus non fulget aurora {Simonis, s.v.).] 

^ Hermann, ad Vi<j. p. 786 : Diligenter eaveant tironcs, ne putent, viros 
spiritu sancto afllatos s])rcvisso sctrmouem mortalium, sed meminerint potius, 
illam interpretandi rationem, qua nonnulli theologorum utuntur, nihil esse nisi 


nificent foliage,' instead of ' I saw a forest,' etc. (John v. 1) ; ^ 
* Send me the book, and I will read it,* for ' You will send me 
the book/ etc. ; ' To whom it was revealed tliat . . .,' for ' To 
whom this was revealed, yet so that . . .' (1 Pet. i. 12);'^ 
' Christ died, he has therefore risen again,' for * but has risen 
again ; ' ' He is not more learned,' for * He is not learned ; ' ' He 
rejoiced that he should see, . . . and he saw, and rejoiced,' for 
' He would have rejoiced if he had seen, . . . even over that 
which he saw he rejoiced ' (John viii. 56) ; ' He began to wash,' 
for * He washed ' (John xiii. 5) ; and the like. If all the 
examples of quid pro quo which during the past decennia a 
number of interpreters have put into the mouths of the apostles 
were collected together, the world would justly be astounded. 
When I, at that time a young academic teacher, undertook 
to combat this unscientific procedure, I did not conceal from 
myself that there were men far better qualified for such a 
work ; and indeed what I accomplished in the earlier editions 
of this Grammar was but imperfect. My attempt, however, 
met with friendly recognition from some men of eminence ; 
first, from Yater and D. Schulz. Others pointed out, some- 
times certainly with harshness, the imperfections of the book ; 
and to these critics I owe much, not only in this work, but 
in all my exegetical labours. I enlarged the grammatical 
material by Excursuses, which followed the second edition in 
1828. Extensive study of the writings of the Greek prose 
authors and of the Hellenistic Jews enabled me to make the 
third edition much more copious, and also more accurate. I 
have subsequently laboured incessantly in the improvement of 
the book ; and I have been gladdened by the aid which philo- 
logical and exef][etical works have afforded in rich abundance 
for this purpose. Meanwhile the rational method of inves- 
tigating the New Testament language has daily gained new 
friends ; and the use made of this Grammar by commentators 
has become more and more apparent : even classical philologers 
have begun to notice the book. At the same time, I have 
always been far from thinking accurate grammatical explana- 
tion to be the only proper exposition of the New Testament ; 

^ Kuhnol's reasoning, Matt. p. 120 sq^., shows (instar omnium) how completely 
the commentators of the old school were destitute of critical perception. 
"^ On tliis passage see my Erlanger Pfingstprogr. (1830). 


and I have borne in silence the charge wliich some have 
brought against me, of being even an opponent of what is now 
called theological exposition. 

The present edition, the sixth, will show on every page that 
I have striven to come nearer to the truth. I deeply lament, 
however, that in the very midst of my labours a nervous 
affection of the eyes brought me to the verge of total blindness. 
Hence I have been compelled to employ the eyes and hands of 
others in the completion of this edition ; and I avail myself 
of this opportunity to express publicly my sincere thanks to 
all my young friends who have unremittingly assisted me : for 
it is only through their aid that I have been enabled to bring 
the work to a conclusion, which I had often despaired of being 
able to reach. 

The change in the arrangement of the matter in Part III. 
Avill, I think, be approved of. In other respects, it has been 
my principal aim to treat every point with greater complete- 
ness and yet in smaller space than formerly : accordingly, the 
text of this Grammar now occupies about eight sheets fewer 
than in my last edition. With this view I have made use of 
abbreviations in the biblical and Greek quotations, as far as 
I possibly could.^ I hope, however, that both these and the 
names of modern authors'^ will everywhere be intelligible. All 
the quotations have been verified anew ; and, so far as I know, 
every scientific work that has appeared since 1844 has been 
turned to account, or at all events noticed. 

In regard to the text of the New Testament, I have uniformly 
(except when dealing v/ith a question of various readings) 
quoted from Dr. Tischendorfs second Leipsic edition [1849], 
which probably now has the widest circulation. 

May the work with these improvements — certainly the last 
it will receive from my hands — accomplish what in its sphere 
it can accomplish for the knowledge of Biblical truth ! 
Leipsic, October 1855. 

^ The Greek writers are only quoted by the page when the division into 
chapters has not obtained currency : Plato, as edited by Stephanus ; Strabo and 
Athenaius, by Oasaubon ; Demosthenes and Isocrates, by H. Wolf; Dionys. 
Hal. by Pieiske ; Dio Cassius by Keimarus ; Dio Chrysost. by Morell. 

^ It may be observed that, instead of Kuinoel, the Latinised form of the 
name, Kühnöl (as the family name was written in German) is used throughout, 
except in Latin citations. 



On tue Object, Treatment, and Histohy of N. T. Grammak 




Sect. i. Various Opinions respecting the Character of the N. T. Diction . 1 -J 

ii. Basis of the N. T. Diction 20 

iii. Hebrew-Aramaic Colouring of the N. T. Diction .... 28 

iv. Grammatical Character of the N. T. Diction .... 37 



Sect. V. Orthography and Orthographical Principles 

vi. Accentuation ....... 

vii. Punctuation ....... 

viii. Unusual Forms in the First and Second Declensions 

ix. Unusual Forms in the Third Declension 

X. Declension of Foreign Words : Indeclinable Nouns 

xi. Declension and Comparison of Adjectives . 

xii. Augment and Reduplication of Regular Verbs 

xiii. Unusual Forms in Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs 

xiv. Unusual Inflexions of Verbs in ^w/ and Irregular Verbs 

XV. Defective Verbs ........ 

xvi. Formation of Derivative and Compound Words . 








Chat. I. The Article 

Sect. xvii. The Article as a Pronoun 
xviii. The Article before Nouns 
xix. Omission of the Article before Nouns 
XX. The Article with Attributives 



Chap. II. Pronouns 

Sect. xxi. The Pronouns in general 

xxii. Personal and Possessive Pronouns 
xxiii. Demonstrative Pronouns 
xxiv. Relative Pronouns ... 
XXV. The Interrogative and Indefinite Pronoun n; 
xxvi. Hebraistic modes of expressing certain Pronouns 



Chap. III. The Noun 

Sect, xxvii. Number and Gender of Nouns 
xxviii. The Cases in general 
xxix. The Nominative and Vocative 
XXX. The Genitive .... 

xxxi. The Dative ..... 
xxxii. The Accusative .... 
xxxiii. Verbs (neuter) connected by means of a 

with a Dependent Noun . 
xxxi v. Adjectives ..... 
xxxv. The Comparative Degree 
xxxvi. The Superlative Degree 
X xxvii. The Numerals .... 




Chap. IV. The Verb 

Sect. X xxviii. The Active and Middle Voices 

XX xix. The Passive Voice .... 

xl. Tlie Tenses 

xli. The Indicative, Conjunctive, Optative Mood 
xlii. The Conjunction «v with the Three Moods 
xliii. The Imperative Mood .... 
xliv. The Infinitive Mood .... 
xlv. The Participle 



CONTENTS. xxvii 

("iiAi". V. Tlic Paiticlcs 

Sect. xlvi. The Particles in freneral 

xlvii. The Prepositions in general, and those which govern 
the Genitive in particular ..... 

xlviii. Prejiositions governing the Dative 
xlix. Prepositions with the Accusative .... 

1. Interchange, Accumulation, and Repetition of Preposi 
tions ........ 

li. Use of Prepositions to form Periphrases 
lii. Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions 

liii. The Conjunctions 

liv. The Adverbs . 

Iv. The Negative Particles 
Ivi. Construction of the Negative Particles . 
Ivii. The Interrogative Particles ..... 






Sect. Iviii. The Sentence and its Elements in general . . .644 
lix. Enlargement of the Simple Sentence in the Subject and 

Predicate : Attributives : Apposition 
Ix. Connexion of Sentences with one another : Periods 
Ixi. Position of Words and Clauses, especially when irregu 
larly arranged (Hyperbaton) .... 

Ixii. Interrupted Structure of Sentences : Parenthesis . 
Ixiii. Sentences in which the Construction is broken off or 

changed : Anacolutlion : Oratio variata 
Ixiv. Incomplete Structure : Ellipsis : Aposiopesis 
Ixv. Redundant Structure : Pleonasm (Redundance), Diffuse 
ness ......... 

Ixvi. Condensation and Resolution of Sentences (Brevilo 

quence, Constructio prsegnans. Attraction, etc. ), 
Ixvii. Abnormal Relation of Particular "Words in the Sentence 


Ixviii. Regard to Sound in the Structure of Sentences 
Paronomasia and Play upon Words (Annominatio) 
Parallelism : Verse ....... 793 








I. Passages of the New Testament . . . . . . .801 

II. Passages of the Old Testament and Apocrypha .... 818 

III. Subjects 820 

IV. Greek Words and Forms 830 


Achilles Tatius . 
iElian .... 
iElian, the tactician . 
iEiieas of Gaza . 
^schines, the philosopher ^ 390 
yEschines, the orator . . 340 
yEschylus . . . .480 
iEsop2 . . . .600 
Agathias .... 
Alciphron .... 
Alexander Numenius (p. 749) 
Ammonius, the grammarian 
Anacreon ' . . .520 

Andocides . . . .410 
Anna Comnena . 
Anonymi Chronologica * (p. 
698) .... 
Antipater of Sidon (p. 733) 105 
Antiphon .... 435 
Antoninus Liberalis . 
Antoninus, Marc. Aurelius 
Apollodorus of Athens 
ApoUonius Dyscolus . 
Apollonius Rhodius . 

Aristarchus, the grammarian 170 
Aristeas ^ . . . . 270 
Aristides, the rhetorician . 
Aristotle . 

Artemidorus Daldianus 
Athenseus . 
















Babrius .... 

Barnabas, Epistle of, written 

about .... 

Basilica, completed about . 





Cauanus, John . . . 1430 

Cantacuzenus, John \. . 1355 
Cebes . . . .400 

Cedrenus, George . . 1060 

Charax, John ... ? 

Chariton .... 500? 

Chrysostom, John . . 390 

( innamus, John . . 1160 

Clement of Alexandria . 195 
Clement of Rome, Epistle 

of, written about . . 95 

Cleomedes . . . 200? 

Codinus, George . . 1440 

Constantine Manasses . 1160 

Constantine Porphyrogenitus 940 

Demetrius Ixion 


Dexippus, the historian 



Diodorus Siculus 

Diogenes Laertius 

Dion Cassius 

Dion Chrysostom 

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 

Dionysius Periegetes . 


Ducas, Michael . 











■ The dialogues anil letters ascribed to this philosopher, together with the otlier ' Epist. 
Socratis et Six latiooruiu.' are spurious. 

2 The collection of prose fables bearing iEsop's name is of very recent date. See Smith, Dirt, 
of Biogr. i. 47 s(i. 

' Almost all that has come down to us under Anacreon's name is spurious. See Müller, Lit. 
ofGi-eece, i. 245-249. 

"* Probably written by Georgius Hamartolus. See Diet, of Biogr. ii. 908. 

•^ The letter which bears the name of Aristeas is spurious, but of early date, —not later than 
tlie first century b.c. 



Epliraera the Syrian . 


Epimenides . . . 600 

Epiphanius, Bishop of Cy 

Epiphauins, the monk 
Etymolo(jlcum Magnum 
Eunapius . 

Euripides .... 435 
Eusebius of Caesarea . 
Eustathius, the erotic writer 
Eustathius, the grammarian 
Eustratius, the philosopher 




Geoponica compiled 
George Acropolita 
George Choeroboscus 
George Pachymeres 
George Phranzes 
George the Pisidian 
George the Syncellus 
Glycas, Michael 
Gorgias of Leontini 
Gregory of Corinth (Pardus) 
Gregory of Nazianzus 
Gregory of Nyssa 



Hcrodian, the grammarian 

Herodian, the historian 



Hierocles (Neo-Platonist) 

Himerius . 





Ignatius, Epistles o^, written 

Irenaeus (Pacatus), the 

grammarian . 
Isocrates . 

Josephus . 
.Julian (Emperor) 
Justin Martyr ^ . 

Leo Diaconus . 

Leo, the grammarian 

Leo VI. (the philosopher or 

Libanius . 























Longinus . 




Lycurgus, the orator , 


Macarius the Egyptian 


Malalas, John . 

Malchus . 

Manetho (author of 'A^ar 

Marinus, the philosopher 

Maximus of Tyre 

Meleager . 

Menander . 

Menander, the historian 


Moschopuli, the (uncle an 

Moschus . 

Nicander . 

Nicephorus Blemmidas 
Nicephorus Bryennius 
Nicephorus Gregoras . 
Nicephorus of Constant: 

nople (Patr.) . 
Nicephorus ii. (Emperor) 

see p. 38 
Nicetas Choniates 
Nicetas Eugenianus . 



Olympiodorus (Neo-Platoi 

Orphic Poems (earliest) 

Pajanius . . . 
Pausanias . 
Petrus Patricius 
Phalaris, Epistles of 
Philo the Jew . 
Philostratus, Flavins ^ 
Philostratus, Flavins,' 

Lemnos . 

Plutarch . 































• The ilate of his iiiidisputod works is al)ont 140 a.d, 

2 Author of Vit. A]ioUo)iLi, Vit. so^iJilsturuni, Imagines, Ileiviat,, etü. 

' Author of another (smaller) work called Imagines. 




Polybius .... ]i)i) 

Porpliyry . 

Priscus Panit's 

Prod us 

Procopius . 

Psellus, ]\Iicbacl (the liis- 

toiiaii) . 
Ptolemy . 

Rosetta Inscription . .196 

Scyinnus of Chios^ . . 80 

Sextus Empiricus 

Sibylline Oracles (earliest) . 150 


Sophocles . . . .440 

Stephaniis of Byzantium . 

Stobagus .... 

Strabo . . . .10 

Suidas .... 

Synesius .... 


II. <. 



T.'les .... 









Theodoret .... 



Theodorus Gaza (p. 29) 



Theodoshis Diaeonus . 


Theodosius, the graininaiiai 

350 ? 


Tlicof^nis .... 



Tiieophanes contiuuatus""' . 


Theopl lanes Isaurus . 


Theopli vastus 


Theoidiylact (Abp. of I'.ui- 
garia) .... 



Thomas IMagister 



Tiberius (p. 749) 




Xenophon of Epliesus 




Zonaras .... 



Zosimus .... 


The Septuagint version may be ascribed to the period 280-160 i;.c. Most of 
the Greek books which are usually included under the name ' Apocrypha ' 
belong (in tlieir Greek dress) to the next hundred years ; the Prayer of 
Manasses and the third Book of Maccabees (and possibly other books) are 
later. The Psalms of Solomon may belong to the second century b.c., but 
the Greek translation was probably made at a much later date. The versions 
of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion were executed in the second century 
A.D. To the same century are referred the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs (early), the Protevangel of James (150 ?), the Gospel of Nico- 
demus (first part — the ' Acts of Pilate '), the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the 
Acts of Thomas. 


Krüger, Sprachlehre : ed. 4, 1861-62. 
Matthiae, Sprachlehre : ed. 3, 1835. 
Rost, Grammatik: ed. 7, 1856. 
Buttmann, Gr. Grammatik: ed. 21, 

Ewald, Lehrbuch: ed. 7, 1863. 
Jelf, Grammar: ed. 3, 1861. 
Veitch, Greek Verbs: ed. 3, 1871. 
Green, Gram, of Ute N. T. : ed. 

In the case of works not specified here or in the Preface, the references are 
usually made to the last edition. 

'Lob.' denotes Lobeck on Phrynichus ; 'Irr. F.,' Fishlake's translation of 
Buttmann's Catalogue of Irregular Verbs (ed. 3, 1866). 

The notes appended by the former translator. Professor Masson, have the 
signature * E. M.' 

1 Author of a Pcriege&is, whicli is lost. The extant poem bearing the same name !.■< of later 

2 See Diet, of Biogr. ii. 757. 


Page 274, line 18, after ii. 1'., insert [or rather, Jude 11.] 

Page 336, line 2, for v. 4 read x. 4. 

Page 588, line 10, for former read latter. 

Page 592, line 23, for o-rou read -ttoZ. 

X°i?. -Where peculiarities in the form of words are in question (and therefore 
in a larcre number of the quotations contained in §§ v.-xvi. of this book), 
the references to the text of Westcott and Hort must be taken in connexion 
with pages 141-173 of their Appendix, where many alternative readings are 
cnven. When this Appendix was published (Sept. 1881\ the greater part 


of the present volume was already in type. 




§ 1. The peculiar language of the N". T., like every other 
language, presents two distinct aspects for scientific investiga- 
tion. We may examine the several words in themselves as to 
their origin and significations — the material element; or we may 
consider these words as they are employed according to certain 
laws to form clauses and periods — the formal element. The 
former is the province of lexicography ; the latter of grammar,^ 
— which must be carefully distinguished from the laws of style 
(or rhetoric) of the N. T. 

N. T. lexicography, of which the examination of synonyms is a 
very important part, though its importance has only of late been duly 
recognised, has hitherto been treated in a merely practical manner. 
A theory might however be constructed, for which the recently intro- 
duced term lexicology would be a convenient name. No such theory 
has as yet been fully developed for the N. T. ; but this is the less 
surprising when we consider that the same want exists in connexion 
with the classical languages, and that our exegetical theology is still 
without a theory of Biblical criticism, higher and lower. Practical 
lexicography has however suffered materially from this deficiency, as 
might be easily shown by an examination of the lexicographical works 
on the X. T., even the most recent.- 

A treatise on the laws of style or (to use the name adopted by 
Glass and by Bauer, the author of Rhctorica Paulina) the Rlietoric of 
the N. T. should investigate the peculiar features of the N. T. lan- 
guage as shown in free, original composition, conditioned merely by 
the character and aim of the writing, — first generally, and then with 
reference to the peculiarities of the genera dicendi and of the several 

^ On the separation of lexicography from grammar see an article by Pott, in 
the Kieler allyem. Monatsschr. July, 1851. 

^ For some remarks on the theory of lexicography see Schleierraacher, Her- 
meneutik, pp. 49, 84. A contribution towards a comparative lexicography is 
furnished by Zeller, in his Theol. Jahrb. II. 443 sqq. 


writers : compare Hand, Lehrh. des led. Styls, p. 25 sq. Much yet 
remains to be done in this department, especially as regards the 
theory of the rhetorical fi.c;ures, which have at all times been used 
most mischievously in N. T. interpretation. The preparatory labours 
of Bauer and D. Schulze ^ are of some use, and Wilke's compilation 
{N. T. Rhetorik: Dresden, 1843) is worthy of attention: Schleier- 
macher too gave excellei>t hints in his Hermeneutik. Biblical rhetoric 
would most appropriately include the treatment of the modes of 
reasoning employed in the discourses of Jesus and in the apostolic 
Epistles. By this arrangement, which agrees in principle with that 
adopted by the ancient rhetoricians, we should avoid the excessive 
subdivision of N. T. exegetics, and the separation of kindred subjects, 
which throw light on one another when studied in connexion,^ 

It may be incidentally remarked that our Encyclopaedias still leave 
very much to be desired in their delineation of exegetical theology 
so called ; and that in practice the hermeneutics are not properly 
distinguished from what we may call t\\Q philology^ of the N. T., — 
denoting by this name the whole of that province of exegetical 
theology which has just been sketched in outline. 

§ 2. As the language in which the N. T. is written is a 
variety of Greek, the proper object of a N. T. grammar would 
be fully accomplished by a systematic grammatical comparison of 
the N. T. language wdth the written Greek of the same age and 
of the same description. As however this later Greek itself has 
not yet been fully examined as a whole, and as N. T. Greek dis- 
plays in general the influence of a foreign tongue (the Hebrew- 
Aramsean), N". T. grammar must take a proportionately wider 
range, and investigate scientifically the laws according to which 
the Jewish writers of the N. T. wrote the Greek of their time. 

Let us suppose, for instance, that a grammar of the Egyptian or 
Alexandrian dialect of Greek is required, that is, a grammar of the 
language used by the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Alexandria, 
gathered from all parts of the world. It will be necessary to collect 
together all the peculiarities which make this a distinct dialect: but a 

^ K. L. Bauer, Rhetorica Paulina (Hal. 1782), and Philolo(jia Thucydideo- 
Paulina (Hal. 1773) : under this head come also H. G. Tzschirner's Ohserva- 
flones Pauli ap. epistolarum scriptoris ingenium concernentes (Viteb. 1800). — 
J. D. Schulze, Der schriftd. Wertk und Character des Johannes (Wcissenf. 
1803); and two similar treatises by the same author, on Peter^ Jude, and James 
( Weissen f. 1802), and on Mark (in Keil and Tzschirner's Analect. Vol. II. and 
Vol. III.). 

* Compare also Gersdorf, Beiträge zur Sprachcharakterist. d. N. T. p. 7 ; 
Keil, Lehrb. der Hermeneutik, p. 28 ; C. J. Kellmann, Diss, de usu liJietorices 
hermeneuti<-o (Gryph. 1766). 

3 I should prefer this old and intellif^iblc appellation, " Pliilologia sacra N.T." 
(compare J. Ch. Beck, Conspect. system, ph'dol. sacroi : Bas. 1760, 12 sec- 
tion.), to that which Schleiermacher ])roposcs in accordance with ancient usage, 
"Grammar :" see Lücke on his Hermeneutik, p. 10. 


mere accumulation of disjointed details will not be siifTicient ; w^i 
must search for tlie leading cliaracteristics, and we must sliow, iti 
every section of the grammar, how the general tendency of the 
dialect has affected the ordinary rules of Greek, by overlooking 
niceties, misusing analogies, etc. Tlie grammar of the dialect will 
then be complete. Since the language of the N. T. is a variety 
of later Greek, a special N. T. grammar could only portray it as 
a species of a species, and would thus presuppose a grammar of 
the ordinary later Greek. But it is hardly possil)le even to form 
a conception of N. T. grammar so restricted, still less could such 
a conception be worked out with advantage. For in the first place, 
the grammar of later Greek, especially in its oral and popular form, 
has not as yet been scientifically investigated,' and hence the founda- 
tion which theory points out for a special N. T. grammar does not 
actually exist. Moreover, the N. T. language in itself is said 
also to exhibit the influence of a non-cognate tongue (the Hebrew- 
Aramsean) upon the Greek. 

For these reasons the boundaries of N. T. grammar must be 
extended in two directions. It must first — since the reader brings 
with him the ordinarv grammar of the written lansfuasre — investii^ate 
the peculiarities of the later Greek in the N. T., according to the 
principles mentioned above; and secondly, it must point out the 
modifications which were introduced by the influence of the Hebrew- 
Aramaean on the Greek, the details being classified as before. It is 
not possible, however, to make a rigorous distinction between these 
two elements ; for in the mind of the N. T. writers the mixture of 
the (later) Greek with the national (Jewish) had given rise to a 
single syntax, which must be recognised and exhibited in its unity. ^ 
This treatment of N. T. grammar will be changed in one respect 
only, when we are furnished with an independent grammar of later 
Greek. Then the N. T. grammarian will not, as now, be compelled 
to illustrate and prove by examples the peculiarities of the later 
language ; a simple reference to these will suffice. On the other 
hand, the polemic element in grammars of the N. T., w^hich combats 

^ Valuable material for this purpose, though rather of a lexical than of a 
grammatical character, will be found in Lobeck's notes on Phrynichi Eclogce 
(Lips. 1820). Irmisch {on Herodian) and Fischer (De vitm Lexicor. N. T.) had 
previously collected much that is serviceable. Abundant material for pliilological 
observations on " Graecitas fatiscens" has more recently been furnished by the 
corrected texts of the Byzantine writers and the Indices appended to most of 
them in the Bonn edition, though these Indices are very unequal in their merit; 
by Boissonade's notes in the Anecdota Grceca (Paris, 1829, &c., 5 vols.), and in 
his editions of Marinus, Philostratus, Nicetas Eugenianus, Babrius, al. ; and lastly 
by Mullach's edition of Hierocles (Berlin, 1853). Lobeck also constantly pays 
due attention to the later Greek element in his Paralipomena GrammaticcB Gr. 
(Lips. 1837, 2 parts); Pafhologice sermonis Gr. Proleg. (Lips. 1843), and Pathol. 
Grceci serm. Elementa (Königsb. 1853, I.); 'P/ifiaTix,öv sive vei'hor. Gr. et norni- 
num verhall. Technologia (Königsb. 1846). [The 2nd volume of Lobeck's Pathol. 
Elementa appeared in 1862. In 1856 Mullach published a Grammatik der 
griechischen Vulgarsprache (Berlin).] 

^ Schleiermacher's remarks on the lexical treatment of Hebraisms {Hernun. 
p. 65) are worthy of attention. 


inveterate and stubborn prejudices or errors revived anew, may 
gradually disappear : at present it is still necessary to vindicate the 
true character of the N. T. diction on this negative side also. For 
even very recently we have seen in the works of well-known com- 
mentators—as Külinöl, Flatt, Klausen in his commentary on the 
Gospels — how deeply rooted was the old grammatical empiricism 
by which ultra Flscherum (or ultra Storrium) sapere was held in 

The notion of special grammars for the writings of different authors, 
as John or Paul, cannot be entertained. What is distinctive in the 
diction of particular writers, especially of those just named, has 
seldom any connexion with grammar. It consists almost entirely in 
a preference for certain words and phrases, or belongs to the rhetori- 
cal element, as indeed Blackwall's observations ^ show. The same 
may be said of most of the peculiarities in the arrangement of words. 
Hence Schulze and Schulz ^ have, on the whole, formed a more cor- 
rect estimate of such specialities than Gersdorf, whose well-known 
work contributes even to verbal criticism no large store of certain 
results, and must have almost proved its own refutation, if it had been 
continued on its own principles. 

§ 3. Although the study of the language of the N. T. is 
the fundamental condition of all true exegesis, Biblical philolo- 
gers have until lately almost excluded N". T. grammar from the 
range of their scientific inquiries. The lexicography of the N. T. 
was the subject of repeated investigation ; but the grammar was 
at most noticed only so far as it stood connected with the doc- 
trine of the Hebraisms of the K T.^ Casp. Wyss (1650) and 
G. Pasor (1655) alone apprehended more completely the idea of 
N. T. grammar, but they were unable to obtain for it recogni- 
tion as a distinct branch of exegetical study. After them, 160 
years later, Haab was the first who handled the subject in a 
special treatise ; but, apart from the fact that he confined his 
attention to the Hebraistic element, his somewhat uncritical 

1 Sacred Classics, I. p. 385 sqq. (London, 1727). 

2 His remarks on N. T. diction are contained in his dissertations on the 
Pai-able of the Steward (Bresl. 1821) and on the Lord's Su])per (Leips. 1824, 
second iinprovccl ed. 1831), and in various reviews in Wachler's IVieol. Annalrn. 
Both dissertations are of an exegetical character, and hence the remarks (which 
are usually acute) are out of ])hice, since they throw but little light on tlie 
exef^esis. Textual criticism miglit turn his observations to good account, had 
but'^the distinguished writer becni pleased to give them to us in a complete form. 
Compare also Schleicirmaclier, Hermen, p. 129. 

3 An honouralde exception among the earlier commentators is the now nearly 
forf'otten G. F. lieupel, wlio, in his co)>ious and almost purely philological com- 
mentary on the Gospel of Mark (Strassl)urg, 171»)), makes many good gram- 
matical ol)servatioi)H. The Greek scholarsiiip of J. F. Hombergk in Xu'A Parenja 
Sacra (Amstel. 1719), and of II. Ihdscui in Ids Nova: JlypothtHes inter pretandoi 
feliciua Ep. Jacobi (Brcm. 1739), is more lexical than grammatical. 


>Äork was fitted rather to retard than to promote the progress 
of the science. 

The first who in some degree collected and explained the gram- 
matical peculiarities of the N. T. diction was the well-known Sal. 
(rlass (t 1C5G), the 3rd and 4th books of whose Philologia Sacm 
are entitled Grammatica sacra and Gramm, sacrm Appendix.^ As 
however he makes Hebrew his point of departure throughout, and 
touches the N. T. language only so far as it agrees with Hebrew, his 
work — to say nothing of its incompleteness — can be mentioned in 
the history of N. T. grammar only as a feeble attempt. On the other 
liand, the historian must revive the memory of the two above-named 
writers, whose names are almost unknown, as indeed their works on 
this subject are forgotten. The first. Gasp. Wyss, Professor of Greek 
in the Gymnasium of Zürich (f 1659), published his Dialedologia 
Sacra^ in 1650. In this work all the peculiarities of the N. T. 
diction, grammatically considered, are classified under the heads, 
Dialedus Attica, lonka, Borica, jEolica, Bceoiica, Po'etica, 'E/?pat^ovo-a, 
— certainly a most inconvenient arrangement, since kindred subjf3Cts 
are thus separated, and in many cases are noticed in four different 
parts of the work. The author too Avas not in advance of his age in 
acquaintance with the Greek dialects, as is proved by the very men- 
tion of a special dialedus poetica, and as an examination of what he 
calls Attic will show still more clearly. As a collection of examples, 
however, in many sections absolutely complete, the work is merito- 
rious ; and the writer's moderation in regard to the grammatical 
Hebraisms of the N. T. deserved the imitation of his contemporaries. 

George Pasor, Professor of Greek at Franeker (f 1637), is well 
known as the author of a small N. T. Lexicon, which has been fre- 
quently republished, last of all by J. F. Fischer. He left amongst his 
papers a ^. T. Grammar, which was published, with some additions 
and corrections of his own, by his sou Matthias Pasor, Prof, of Theo- 
logy at Groningen (f 1658), under the title, G. Pasoris Grammatica 
Grcpca sacra N. T. in ires libros distributa (Groning. 1655, pp. 787). 
This work is now a literary rarity,^ though far better fitted than the 
lexicon to preserve the author's name in the memory of posterity. 
As the title indicates, the volume is divided into three books, of 
which the first contains the Accidence, the second (pp. 244-530) 
the Syntax, and the third seven appendices, — de nominibus N. T., de 
verbis N. T., de verbis anomalis, de dialectis N. T., de accentibus, de 

^ In Dathe's edition this Grammatica sacra constitutes the first book. 

2 Dialectologia sacra, in qua quicquid per Universum N. F. contextum. in 
apostolica et voce et phrasi a comnuini Grcecor. lingua eoque grammatica ana- 
iogia discrepat, methodo congrua disponitur, accurate definitur et omnium sacri 
contextus exemplorum inductione ilLustratur. Tigur. 1650, pp. 324 (without 
the Appendix). 

■•» Even Foppen {Bibliotheca helgica, Tom. I. p. 342), who enumerates Pasor's 
other writings, does not mention this work. Its cieat rarity is attested by 
Salthen, Cat. biblioth. libr. rar. (Regiom. 1751), p. 470 ; and by D. Gerdesius, 
Florileg. hist. crit. libr. var. (Groning. 1763), p. 272. 


praxi grammaticce, de numeris s. arilhmefica Grceca. The most valuable 
parts of the work are the second book and the fourth appendix ;^ for 
in the first book and in most of the appendices the writer treats of 
well-known subjects belonging to general Greek grammar, and, for 
example, most needlessly gives full paradigms of Greek nouns and 
verbs. The Syntax is accurate and exhaustive. The author points 
out what is Hebraistic, but does not often adduce parallels from 
Greek authors. This useful book suffers from the want of a com- 
plete index. 

In the interval between Pasor and Haab K T. grammar received 
only incidental notice, in works on the style of the N. T., as in those 
of Leusden [De dialecUs N. T.) and Olearius (De stylo N. T., pp. 
257-271). These writers, however, limited their attention almost 
entirely to Hebraisms ; and by including amongst these much that 
is pure Greek they threw back into confusion the whole question of 
the grammatical structure of the K T. Georgi was the first to show 
that many constructions usually regarded as Hebraisms belonged to 
genuine Greek usage, but he also sometimes falls into extremes. His 
writings passed into almost total neglect. Meanwhile Fischer gave 
currency anew to the works of Vorst and Leusden, and during many 
years Storr's well-known book^ was able to exercise without 
restraint its pernicious influence on the exegesis of the N. T. 

From the school of Storr now came forward Ph. H. Haab, Eector 
of Schweigern in the kingdom of Würtemberg (f 1833), with his 
" Hebrew-Greek Grammar for the N. T., with a preface by F. G. von 
Süskind " (Tubing. 1815). Disregarding the genuine Greek element 
in the diction of the N. T., he confined his attention to the gram- 
matical Hebraisms, and in the arrangement of his materials followed 
the works of Storr and Weckherlin.^ If we are to believe a reviewer 
in Bengel's Archiv (vol, i. p. 406 sqq.), " the diligence, judgment, 
accuracy, nice and comprehensive philological knowledge, with which 
the author has accomplished his task, must secure for his work the 
approval of all friends of the thorough exegesis of the N. T." A 
different and almost directly opposite verdict is given by two 
scholars^ who must in this field be regarded as thoroughly competent 
(and impartial) judges ; and after long and manifold use of the book 
we are compelled to agree with these critics in all points. The great 
defect of the work consists in this, — that the author has not rightly 
understood the difference between the pure Greek and the Hebraistic 

1 This appendix had aheady been added by Pasor liiniself to tlie first edition 
of his SyllahuH Graico-LatinuH omnium N. T. vocum (Anistel. 1632), under thii 
title, Idea {nyllalmH hrevi») Groicarum N. T. diakctorum. At tlie close he 
l>roniiscs the above complete Grammatica N. T. 

"^ OhHervatt. ud analog, et syntax'm JL'Jrr. (Stntt. 1779). Some acute gram- 
inatical observations, especially on enallage tc.mporum, particvlai'um, t&c, arc 
to be found in J. (i. Stiaube, Diss, de emphasi Gr. Unyuce N. T., in Van den 
llonert's Synta'pna, p. 70 m\(\. 

^ Wecklicrlin, Jlchr. Grammat. (2 parts), 

* See the reviews in the Neu. theo!.. Annal. 181«, U, pp. 859-879, and (by 
de Wette?) the A. L. Z, 1816, N. 39-41, pp. 305-326. 


elements in the language of the N. T. ; has accordingly adduced as 
Hebraistic very much which eitlier is the common })roperty of all 
cultivated lan<;ua<ies, or, at all events, occurs in Greek as frequently 
as in Hebrew ; and, out of love to Storr's observations, has altogether 
misinterpreted anndtitude of passages in the N. T. (for examples see 
below) hy fur dug Hebraisms upon them. Besides all this, everything 
is in confusion, the arrangement of materials is most arbitrary, and 
the book opens with a section on Tropes ! — a subject which does not 
belong to grammar at all. Hence we cannot regard as too severe the 
words with which the second of the reviewers above mentioned con- 
cludes : " Seldom have we seen a book which has been so complete 
a failure, and against the use of which it has been necessary to give 
so emphatic a warning." 

§ 4. The remarks scattered through commentaries on the 
K T., books of observations, and exegetical monographs, though 
sometimes displaying very respectable learning, yet when all 
taken together presented no complete treatment of the grammar. 
But even their incompleteness does less to render these collec- 
tions useless, than the uncritical empiricism which ruled Greek 
philology until the commencement of this century, and Hebrew 
much later still ; as indeed this same empiricism has impressed 
on N. T, exegesis also the character of uncertainty and arbitrari- 
ness. The rational method of treatment, which seeks for the 
explanation of all the phenomena of languages, even of their ano- 
malies, in the modes of thought wdiich characterise nations and 
individual writers, has completely transformed thestudyof Greek. 
The same method must be applied to the language of the N. T. : 
then, and not till then, N. T. grammar receives a scientific 
character, and is elevated into a sure instrument for exegesis. 

The main features of this empirical philology, so far as grammar 
is concerned, are the following : 

{a) The grammatical structure of the language was apprehended 
only in rudest outline, and hence the mutual relation of allied forms, 
in which the genius of the Greek language is peculiarly shown, — as 
of the aorist and perfect, the conjunctive and optative, the two 
negatives ov and /xtJ, — was left almost entirely undefined. 

{h) Those forms whose true signification was generally recognised 
were confounded together by an unlimited enallage, in virtue of 
which one tense or case or particle might stand for another, even 
for one of a directly opposite meaning, e.g. preterite for future, oltto 
for 7rpo9, etc. 

(c) A host of ellipses were devised, and in the simplest sentences 
there was always something to be supplied. 

The commentators applied these principles — which still appear in 
Fischer's copious Animadv. ad Welleri Ch'amm. Gr. (Lips. 1798 sqq. 


3 spec.) — to the interpretation of the N. T. Kay they considered 
themselves justified in using still greater freedom than classical philo- 
logers, because (as they held) the Hebrew language, on the model of 
which the Greek of the N. T. was framed, had as its distinguishing 
characteristic the absence of all definiteness in forms and regularity 
of syntax, so that Hebrew syntax was treated, not as a connected 
whole, but only under enallage and solecism. ^ The ordinary com- 
mentaries on the N. T. exhibit in profusion the natural results 
of such principles, and Storr ^ earned the distinction of reducing 
this vfhole farrago of crude empirical canons of language into a kind 
of system. Apart from all other considerations, such canons of lan- 
guage necessarily gave unlimited scope for arbitrary interpretation, 
and it was easy to extract from the words of the sacred writers 
meanings directly contrary to each other.^ 

It was in Greek philology that the reformation commenced. A 
pupil of Reitz, Gottfr. Hermann, by his work De emendanda ratione 
grammaticce Grmcm (1801), gave the first powerful impulse to the 
rational'^ investigation of this noble language. In the course of more 
than forty years this method has penetrated so deep, and has pro- 
duced such solid results, that the face of Greek grammar is entirely 
changed. It has recently been combined with historical investiga- 
tion,-^ and not without success. The principles of this method, which 
entitle it to the name of rational, are the following : 

(a) The fundamental meaning of every grammatical form (case, 
tense, mood), or the idea which underlay this form in the mind of the 

^ The attempts made by better scholars to combat this empiricism were 
only partial and isolated. The Wittenberg Professors Balth. Stolberg (in his 
Tractat. de solcechm. et barbarism. Gr. N. F. dictioni falso tribiitis : Vit. 1681 
and 1685) and Fr. Woken (in his Pietas critica in hypallagasbibl. : Viteb. 1718, 
and especially in his Enallagce e N. T. Gr. textus proicipuis el plurimis locis 
exterminaice : Viteb. 1730) exposed many blunders of the commentators, and 
on the Avhole very intelligently, J. C. Schwarz also shows creditable learning 
and acumen in his Lib. de opinatis discipulor. Chr. soloecisinis (Cob. 1730). 
Such voices were however not listened to, or were drowned by a contorte! 
artificioae ! 

^ How complete a contrast is presented by his acute countryman Alb. Bengel, 
in his Gnomon! Though he often falls into over-refined explanations, and 
attributes to the Apostles his own dialectic modes of thought, yet he left to 
posterity a model of careful and spirited exposition. He notices j)oints of 
grammar, — compare e.g. A. iii. 19, xxvi. 2, 1 C. xii. 15, Mt. xviii. 17, H, vi, 4 : 
in the lexical department he pays especial attention to the examination of 

^ "Sunt," says Tittmann {Synon. N. T. I, p, 206), "qui grammaticarum 
legum obs(;rvati()nem in N, T, interpretatione parum curent et, si scriptoris 
cujusdam verba granimatice i. e, ex le^dhus lingua? explicatasententiam . , . ab 
ipsorum opinione alienam prodant, nullam illarum Icguin rationem habeant, 
sed propria verborum vi neglecta scriptorcm dixisse contendant, <iu<je talibus 
verbis nemo saria rnente prceditus dicere unquam potuit." Hermann's sarcasm 
( Vig. 788) was quite just, 

*I prefer "rational" to " ])hilosoj)hical," because the latter word may 
easily be misunderstood. All philological inquiry that is merely empirical is 
irrational : it deals with language; as somethin;^ merely external, and not as 
bearing the impress of thou^^dit. Compare Tittmann, Sijn. p, 205 scp 

* it. Bernhardy, W'tssenschaJlUche Syntax der gr. Sprache (Berlin, 1829). 


Greek nation, is exactly seized, and all the various uses of the form 
are deduced from this ju-iniary signification : l)y this means number- 
less elli})ses have been demolished, and tnallagG has been confined 
within its natural {i.e., narrow) limits. 

{h) When the established laws of the language are violated, either 
in expressions of general currency, or in the usage of individual 
writers, the grammarian is at pains to show how the irregularity 
originated in the mind of the speaker or writer, — by anacoluthon, 
confusio duarum structurarum, attraction, constructio ad sensum, 
brachylogy, etc. 

The language is thus presented as bearing the direct impress of 
(Jreek thought, and appears as a living idiom. The grammarian is 
• not content with merely noticing the phenomena : he traces each 
form and turn of speech back into the thought of the speaker, and 
endeavours to lay hold of it as it comes into existence within the 
speaker's mind. Thus everything which is impossible in thought is 
rejected as impossible in language; as, for instance, that a writer 
could use the future tense when he wished to refer to the j^ast ; could 
say to for from; could call a man wiser when he wished to call him 
wise; could indicate a cause by consequently ; could say, / saw the 
man, when he wished to express, / saiu a man. For a long time, 
however, these elucidations of Greek grammar (and lexicography) 
remained altogether unnoticed by Biblical scholars. They adhered to 
the old Viger and to Storr, and thus separated themselves entirely 
from classical philologers, in the belief — which however no recent 
writer has distinctly expressed — that the N. T. Greek, as being 
Hebraistic, could not be subjected to such philosophical investigation. 
They would not see that Hebrew itself, like every other human 
language, both admits and requires rational treatment. Through 
Ewald's reiterated efforts this fact has now been made patent to all. 
All are convinced that, even in the Hebrew language, the ultimate 
explanation of phenomena must be sought in the national modes of 
thought, and that a nation characterised by simplicity could least of 
all be capable of transgressing the laws of all human language. ^ It 
is not now considered sufficient to assign to a preposition, for 
instance, the most different meanings, just as a superficially examined 

^ Rational investigation must be founded on historical. The whole field 
of the language must be historically surveyed, before we can discover the causes 
of the individual phenomena. The simpler the Hebrew language is, the easier 
is this process of discovery, for a simple language presupposes simple modes 
of thought. In the rational investigation of Hebrew the problem assigned us 
is, to reproduce the course of the Hebrew's thought ; to conceive in our minds 
every transition from one meaning of a word to another, every construction 
and idiom of the language, as he conceived it ; and thus discover how each of 
these grew up in his mind, for the spoken %vords are but the impress ot the 
thought, — as indeed in this very language thinking is regarded as an inicard 
speaking [e.g.. Gen. xvii. 17, Ps. x. 6]. To think of constructing ä /priori the 
laws of a language is absurd. It may be readily admitted that this rational 
system of investigation may be misused by individuals, as even the Greek 
philologers sometimes deal in subtleties ; but to persevere in insipid empiricism 
from tlie apprehension of such danger is disgraceful. 


context may require : pains are taken to trace the transition from 
the fundamental signification of every particle to each of its secondary 
meanings, and the admission of meanings without such a process of 
derivation is regarded as an unscientific assumption. Nor is any one 
satisfied now with vaguely remarking that non omnis (by which no 
man of sense could mean anything but 7iot every one) was used by 
the Hebrews as equivalent to omnis non, that is, nullus ; he rather 
indicates in every instance the exact point on which the eye should 
be fixed. 

Hence the object which grammar must in any case strive after is 
the rational treatment of the N. T. language : thus, and thus only, 
grammar obtains for itself a scientific basis, and in turn furnishes the 
same for exegesis. The materials- offered by Greek philology must 
be carefully used ; but in using them we must by all means keep in 
mind that we cannot regard as established all the nice distinctions 
which scholars have laid down (so as, for instance, even to correct the 
text in accordance with them), and also that classical philology itself 
is progressive : indeed it has already been found necessary to modify 
many theories (e.g. the doctrine of et with the conjunctive), and 
other points are still under discussion even amongst the best scholars 
— some of the constructions of av, for example. 

Since 1824, IST. T. grammar has received very valuable contri- 
butions from Fritzsche, in particular, in his Dissertt. in 2. Epist. ad 
Cor. (Lips. 1824), his Commentaries on Matthetv and Mark, his Con- 
jectan. in N. T. (Lips. 1825, 2 spec), and especially in his Commen- 
tary on the El), to the Romans (Hal. 1836). Here should also be 
mentioned the treatises by Gieseler and Bornemann in Eosenmiiller's 
Exeget. Repert. (2nd vol.), Bornemann's Scholia in Lucce Evang. 
(Lips. 1830), and in part his edition of the Acts of the Apostles.^ 
Lastly, many grammatical problems have been discussed in the 
controversial correspondence between Fritzsche and Tholuck.'^ The 
philological investigation of the N. T. language has exerted more or 
less influence on all the numerous N. T. commentaries which have 
recently appeared,^ whether emanating from the critical, the evan- 
gelical, or the philosophical school ; though only a few of the writers 
(as Van Hengel, Lücke, Bleek, Meyer) have given full attention to 
the grammatical element, or treated it with independent judgment. 

^ Acta ApoHt. ad Cod. Cantahr'uj. fidem rec. et interpret, eat (Grossenhäin, 
1848, I.). 

^ Fritzsche, Ueher die Verdienste D. Tholuchs urn die Schrifterlclärvmj 
(Halle, 1831). Thohick, Beiträge zur Spracherklärvng des N. T. (Halle, 1832). 
Fritzsche, Präliminarien zur Abbitte und £Jhrenerklärung, die ich gern dem D. 
Tholuck geiüähren möclde (Halle, 1832). Tholuck, Noch ein ernstes Wort an 
D. Fritzsche (Halle, 1832). In his Commentary on the Ep. to the Hebrews 
(Hamb. 1836, 1840, 1850), Tholuck laid more stress on philolof^ical investigation. 
The severe censure passed in an anonymous work, Beiträge zur ErJdärung des 
Br. an die Jlebr. (Leipz. 1840), has less reference to grammar than to Tholuck 's 
treatment of the subject matter of the Epistle. 

•* P>en on the commentaries of the excellent Baumgarten-Crusius, the weakest 
side of which is certainly the philological. 


A sensible estimate of the better philological princii)los in their appli- 
cation to the N. T. has been given by A. G. llölemann, in iiis 
Comment, de interpretaiione sacra cum jJfofana feliciter cmijwKjtnda 
(Lips. 1832). 

N. T. grammar has recently made its way from Germany to Eng- 
land and North America, partly in a translation of the 4th edition of 
the present work^ (London, 1840), partly in a distinct (indepen- 
dent 1) treatise by W. Trollope {Greek Grammar of the New Testament : 
London, 1842). An earlier work on this subject by Moses Stuart 
(Grammar of the New Testament Dialect: Andover, 1841), I have not 
yet seen.'^ 

The special grammatical characteristics of particular writers have 
begun to form a subject of inquiry (yet see above, p. 4) : G. P. C. 
Kaiser, Diss, de speciali Joa. jJp. grammatica culpa negligeniice lihe- 
randa (Erlang. 1824, IL), and De speciali Petri Ap. gr. culpa, dc. 
(Erlang. 1843). 

^ [Translated by Agnew and Ebbeke (Philadelphia, 1840). An earlier 
edition of Winer's Grammar had been translated in 1825 by M. Stuart and 
Kobinson. In 1834 Prof. Stuart published a N. T. Grammar, part of which 
aj^iJeared in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. x.] 

^ [To this list the following works may be added : A. Buttmann, Gram- 
matik des neutesi. Sprachgebrauchs : im Anschlüsse an Ph. Buttmann s griech. 
Grammatik (Berlin, 1859) ; Schirlitz, Grundzüge der neutest. Gräcität (Giessen, 
1861) ; K. H. A. Lipsius, Grammatische Untersuchungen über die biblüche Grä- 
cität ; lieber die Lesezeichen (Leipzig, 1863) ; T. S. Green, Treatise on the Gram- 
mar of the N. T. (Bagster, 1842; 2d edition, considerably altered, 1862); W. 
Webster, Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek Test. (Rivingtons, 1864). In the 
later (the 3d and 4th) editions of Jelf's Greek Grammar considerable attention 
is given to the constructions of the Greek Testament. The Grammars of Winer 
and A. Buttmann have recently found a very able and careful translator in Pro- 
fessor Thayer, of Andover, Massachusetts. Another useful work, of a more 
elementary character, is Dr. S. G. Green's Handbook to the Grammar of 
the N. T. (1870, Rel. Tr. Society).] 



Section L 

various opinions eespecting the character of the 

n. t. diction. 

1. Though the character of the N. T. diction is in itself 
tolerably distinct, erroneous or at any rate incomplete and one- 
sided opinions respecting it were for a long time entertained by 
Biblical philologers. These opinions arose in part from want of 
acquaintance with the later Greek dialectology, but also from dog- 
matic considerations, through which, as is always the case, even 
clear intellects became incapable of discerning the line of exact 
exegesis. From the beginning of the 1 7th century the attempt 
had been repeatedly made by certain scholars (the Purists) to 
claim classic purity and elegance in every respect for the N. T. 
style ; whilst by others (the Hebraists) the Hebrew colouring 
was not only recognised, but in some instances greatly exag- 
gerated. The views of the Hebraists held the ascendancy about 
the close of the 17 th century, though without having entirely 
superseded those of their rivals, some of wdiom were men of 
considerable learning. Half a century later the Purist party 
entirely died out, and the principles of the Hebraists, a little 
softened here and there, obtained general acceptance. It is only 
very lately that scholars have begun to see that these principles 
also are one-sided, and have rightly inclined towards the middle 
path, which had been generally indicated long before by Peza 
and H. Stephens. 

Tlie history of tlie various theories wliich were successively main- 
tained, not without vclicmcncc and considerable party bias, is given 
in brief by Morus, ylcroas. ucad. sup. JIc.rme/ieuL N. T. (ed. Eichstädt) 
yol. J. p. 210 sqq. ; by Meyer, Gesch. der SchrißerJdür. III. 342 sqq. 


(comp. Eichstädt, Pr. seiitentiar. de didiime scriplor. N. T. hrevis cen- 
aura: J(Mi. 184;")) ; and, witli somo important inaccuracies, by O. J. 
Planck, in his Einleit. in d. (heol. Jilsdciischifß, II. 43 sqq. : ^ compare 
Stanüje, Theol. Symmikfa, II. 295 sqq. On the literature connected 
with^tliis suhject see Walcli, Bihliofh. Theol IV. 276 S(iq.'-^ Th<^ 
following outline of the controversy, in which the statements of the 
above-named writers are here and there corrected, will be sufficient 
for our purpose. 

Erasmus had spoken of an " apostolorum sermo non solum inipo- 
litus et inconditus verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatus, aliquoties 
])lane soloecissans." In reply to this, Beza, in a Digresdo de dono 
Unguarum et apostoL sermone (on Acts x. 46), pointed out the simplicity 
and force of N. T. diction, and in particular placed the Hebraisms 
(which, as is well known, he was far from denying) in a very favour- 
able light, as " ejusmodi, ut nullo alio idiomate tam feliciter exprimi 
possint, imo interdum ne exprimi quid em," — indeed as " gemmae 
quibus (apostoli) scripta sua exornarint." After Beza, H. Stephens, 
in the Preface to his edition of the N. T. (1576), entered the lists 
against those " qui in his scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esse 
putant ; " and took pains to show by examples the extent to which 
the niceties of Greek are observed in the N. T., and how the very 
Hebraisms give inimitable force and emphasis to its style. These 
niceties of style are, it is true, rather rhetorical than linguistic, and 
the Hebraisms are rated too high ; but the views of these two ex- 
cellent Greek scholars are evidently less extreme than is commonly 
supposed, and are on the whole nearer the truth than those of many 
later commentators. 

Both Drusius and Glass acknowledged the existence of Hebraisms 
in the N. T., and gave illustrations of them without exciting opposi- 
tion. The first advocate of extreme views was Seb. Pfochen. In 
his Diatribe delinguce Grcecce N. T.piiritate (Amst. 1629 : ed. 2, 1633), 
after having in the Preface defined the question under discussion to 
be, '' an stylus N. T. sit vere Grsecus nee ab aliorum Grsecorum stylo 
alienior talisque, qui ab Homero, Demosthene aliisque Graecis intel- 
ligi potuisset," he endeavours to show by many examples (§ 81-129), 
" Graecos autores profanos eisdem phrasibus et verbis loquutos esse, 
quibus scriptores N. T." (§ 29). This juvenile production however 
— the principles of which were accepted by Erasmus Schmid, as his 
Opus posthumum (1658) shows — seems to have excited little attention 
at the time with its rigid Purism. The first who gave occasion 
(though indirectly) for controversy on the diction of the N. T. was 
the Hamburg Rector Joachim Junge (1637, 1639) ; though his real 

^ [This portion of Planck's work is translated in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. vii. 
pp. 67-71. The controversy is briefly sketched by Tregelles, in his edition of 
Home's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 21 sq.] 

* See also Baumgarten, Polemik, iii. 176 sqq. The opinions of the Fathers 
(especially the Apologists) on the style of the N. T. are given by J. Lami, De 
erudit. Apostolor. p. 138 sqq. They regard the subject more from a rhetorical 
than from a grammatical point of view. Theodoret {Gi: affect, cur.) trium- 
phantly contrasts the ffoXoiKKTfAoi aknvriKoi with the ^uWoyifffAo) aTriKol. 


opinions as to the Hellenism (not barbarism) of the N. T. style ^ 
were admitted by his opponent, the Hamburg Pastor Jac. Grosse 
(1640), not indeed to be correct, but at all events to be free from 
insidious intent. ^ The latter writer, however, brought upon himself 
the censure of Dan. Wulfer (1640), who, in his Iniiocentia Helle- 
nistarum vindicata (without date or place), complained of the want of 
clearness in Grosse's strictures.^ Grosse had now to defend himself, 
not only against Wulfer, whom he proved to have misunderstood 
his meaning, but also (1641) against the Jena theologian Joh. 
Musseus (1641, 1642), who found fault with Grosse's inconsistencies 
and unsettled views, but wrote mainly in the interests of dogma (on 
verbal inspiration). Hence by degrees Grosse gave to the world 
five small treatises (1641, 1642), in defence, not of the classic 
elegance, but of the purity and dignity of the N. T. language. 

Without entering into these disputes, which passed into hateful 
personalities, and which were almost entirely useless to science, Dan. 
Heinsius (1643) declared himself on the side of the Hellenism of the 
N. T. language ; and Thomas Gataker {De Novl Instrument i stylo dis- 
sert., 1648) wrote expressly — with learning, but not without exagge- 
ration — against the Purism of Pfochen. Joh. Vorstalso now published 
(1658, 1665) the well-arranged collection of N. T. Hebraisms which 
for some time he had had in preparation : this work soon after fell 
underthecensureof Hor. Vitringa, asbeing one-sided in ahigh degree.* 

^ In a German memorial to the department of ecclesiastical affairs (1637) 
Junge himself thus explains his true views : I have indeed said, and 1 still say, 
that there exists in the N. T. what is not really Greek. . . . The question an 
N. T. scateat barbarismis is so offensive a question, that no Christian man 
raised it before ; . . . that barbarous formulas are to be found in the N. T. I 
have never been willing to allow, especially because the Greeks themselves 
recognise a barbarism as a vitium. [Liinemann refers to J. Jungius " Ueber die 
Originalsprache des N. T^ vorn Jahre 1637 : aufgefunden, zuerst herausgegeben 
und eingeleitet von Joh. Geffcken (Hamb. 1863).] 

'-^ His two main theses are the following: "Quod qnamvis ev^angelistse et 
apostoli in N. T. non adeo ornato et nitido, tumido et affectato (!) dicendi 
genere usi sint . . . impium tamen, imo blasphemum sit, si quis inde S. litera- 
rum Studiosus Grfficum stylum . . . sugillare, vilipendere et juventutisuspectum 
facere ipsique vitia et notam soloecismorum et barbarisinorum attricare con- 
tendat. . . . Quod nee patres, qui solcjecismorum et barbarismorum meminerunt 
et apostolos idiotas fuisse scripserunt, nee illi autores, qui stylurn N. T. Helle- 
nisticum esse statuerunt, nee isti, qui in N. T. Ebraismos et Chaldaismos esse 
observarunt, stylum s. apostolorum contemserint, sugillarint eumque impuritatis 
alicujus accusarint cet." 

^ Grosse's work was strictly directed against a possible inference from the 
position that the Greek of the N. T. is not such as native Greek authors use, and 
in the main concerns adversaries that (at all events in Hamburg) had then no 
existence. Besides, he keeps throughout mainly on the negative side ; as is 
shown, for example, by the resume (p. 40 of Grosse's Trias) : Ktiamsi Gnucus 
styhis apostolorum non sit tarn ornatns et affectatus, ut fuit ille ([ui fuit florente 
Gnecia, non Atticus ut Atheiiis, non Doric-us ut Coriuthi, non Tonicuis ut Kpliesi, 
non ylilolicus ut Troade, fuit tarnen vcrc Griccus ab omni solcjecismorum et bar- 
barismorum labe immunis. 

* In the preface Vorst ex[)rcsses his conviction, ** .«acros codices N. T. talibus 
et vocabulis et phrasibus, quie Hebraiam liiiguam sa[>iaiit, scatere plane.'' Coni- 
j»are also his Cogitata de stylo N. 7\, prefixed to Fischer's edition of his work on 


J. H. Böcler (1G41) and J. Oleariiis (IGGS)^ took a middle course, 
disoriininatiiiii; witli greater care hetween the Hel)rewaiid tlie Greek 
elements of tlie N. T. style ; and with them J. Leusden agreed in 
the main, though he is inferior to Oleariiis in discretion. 

By most, however, it was now regarded as a settled point that the 
Hebraisms must be allowed to be a very prominent element in the 
language of the N. T., and that they give to the style a colouring, not 
indeed barbarous, but widely removed from the standard of Greek 
purity.^ This is the result arrived at by Mos. Solanus in a long- 
deferred but very judicious reply to Pfochen. Even J. Heinr. 
Michaelis (1707) and Ant. Blackwall (1727) did not venture to deny 
the Hebraisms : they endeavoured to prove that the diction of the 
N. T. writers, although not free from Hebraisms, still has all the 
qualities of an elegant style, and is in this respect not inferior to 
classic purity. The latter scholar commences his work (whichabounds 
in good observations) with these words : "We are so far from denying 
that there are Hebraisms in the N. T., that we esteem it a great advan- 
tage and beauty to that sacred book that it abounds with them." Their 
writings, however, had as little effect on the now established opinion 
as those of the learned Ch. Siegm. Georgi, who in his Vindicioi N. T. 
ab Ebraismis (1732) returned to the more rigid Purism, and defended 
his positions in his Hierocriticus sacer (1733). He was followed, with 
no greater success, by J. Conr. Schwarz, the chief aim of whose 
Commentarii crit. et philol. linguce Gr. N. T. (Lips. 1736) was to prove 
that even those expressions which had been considered Hebraisms 
are pure Greek. ^ The last who joined these writers in combating 
the abuse of Hebraisms were El. Palairet {Observatt. philol. crit. in 
N. T. : Lugd. Bat. 1752) ^ and H. W. van Marie (Florileg. observ. in 
epp. apostol. : Lugd. Bat. 1758). Through the influence of the school 
of Ernesti a more correct estimate of the lano-uaLre of the N. T. 
became generally diflfused over Germany : ^ compare Ernesti, Instit. 
Interp. I. 2, cap. 3. [Blbl. Cab. I. p. 103 sqq.] 

^ The StricturcB in Pfochen. diatrih. by J. Coccejus were drawn up merely for 
private use, and were first published in Rhenferd's Sammlung. 

2 See also Werenfels, Opusc. I. p. 311 sqq. — Hemsterhuis on Lucian, Dial. 
Mar. 4. 3 : " Eorum, qui orationem N. F. Graecam esse castigatissimam con- 
tendunt, opinio penpxam mihi semper ridicula fuit visa." Blth. Stolberg also 
{De solaecis7nls et barbarlsmis JV. T. : Viteb. 1681 and 1685) wished merely to 
vindicate the N. T. from blemishes unjustly ascribed to it ; but in doing this he 
explained away many real Hebraisms. 

^ Conscious of certain victory Schwarz speaks thus in his preface (p. 8) : 
" Olim Hebraismi, Syrismi, Chaldaismi, Rabinismi (sic !), Latinismi cet, cele- 
brabantur nomina, ut vel scriptores sacri suam Graecae dictionis ignorantiam 
prodere aut in Graeco sermone tot linguarum notitiam ostentasse viderentur vel 
saltern interpretes illoruni literatissimi et singularum locutionum perspicacissimi 
judicarentur. Sed conata hcee ineptiarum et vanitatls ita sunt etiam a nobis con- 
victa, ut si qui cet." A satire on the Purists may be seen in Soinnium in quo 
prceter cetera genius sec. vapulai (Alteburg, 1761), p. 97 sqq. 

* Supplements by Palairet himself are to be found in the Blblioth. Brem. nova 
CI. 3, 4. In the main, however, Palairet quotes parallels almost exclusively for 
meanings and phrases which no man of judgment will regard as Hebraisms. 

* Ernesti's judgment on the diction of the N. T. {Diss, de difficult, interpret, 
grammat. N. 7". § 12) may here be recalled to mind : " Genus orationis in libris 


Most of the (older) controversial works on this subject (those 
mentioned above and others besides) are collected in J. Rhenferd's 
Dissertatt.philolog. -theolog. de stylo N. T. syntagma (Leov. 1702), and 
in what may be considered a supplement to this work, Taco Hajo 
van den Honert, Syntagma dissertatt. de stylo N. T. Grceco (Amst. 

AVe will endeavour briefly to describe the mode in which the 
Purists sought to establish their theory.'^ 

Their eff'orts were mainly directed towards collecting from native 
Greek authors passages in which occur the identical words and 
phrases which in the N. T. are explained as Hebraisms. In general, 
no distinction was made between the rhetorical element and what 
properly belongs to language ; but besides this the Purists over- 
looked the following facts : 

(a) That many expressions and phrases (especially such as are 
figurative) are from their simplicity and naturalness the common 
property of all or of many languages, and therefore can no more be 
called Gisecisms than Hebraisms.^ 

(b) That a distinction must be made between the diction of poetry 
and that of prose, and also between the figures which particular 
writers may now and then use to give elevation to their style (as 
lumina orationis) and those which have become an integral part of 
the language. If expressions used by Pindar, ^schylus, Euripides, 
&c., occur in the j^lain prose of the N. T.,^ or if these expressions or 
rare Greek figures are here in regular and ordinary use, this furnishes 
no proof at all of the classical purity of N. T. Greek. 

(c) That when the N. T. writers use a form of speech which is 

N. T. esse e pure Grißcis et Ebraicam maxime consuetiidinem referentibus verbis 
formulisque dicendi mixtum et temperatum, id quidem adeo evidens est iis, qui 
satis Greece sciunt, ut plane misericordia digni sint, qui omnia bene Groica esse 

1 The essays of Wulfer, Grosse, and Musjeus, though of little importance in 
comparison with their size, should have been inserted in these collections ; and 
the editors were wrong in admitting only one of Junge's treatises, the Sententice 
doct. vir. de stylo N. T. Compare further Blessig, Prcesidia interpret. H. T. ex 
auctoribus Gnzc. (Argent. 1778), and Mittenzwey, Locorum quorundam e Hut- 
chinsoni ad Xenoph. iJyrop. notis, quihus 2^urum et elegans N. T. dicendi genus 
defenditur. refutatio (Coburg, 1763). A treatise by G. C. Draudius, De stylo 
iV. T. in tlic Primitt. Alsfeld. Nürnb. 1736 (Neubauer, iV^ac/tr. von jetzt lebenden 
Theol. I. 253 si^q.), I have not seen. 

2 Some of the points are noticed by Mittenzwey in the essay mentioned in the 
last note. 

3 Hebrew, and therefore Hebraic Greek, possesses the qualities of simplicity 
and vividness in common with the language of Homer ; but the particular 
expressions cannot be called Hebraisms in tlie one case orGrjBcisms in the other. 
Languages in general have many ])oints of contact, especially as -popularly 
spoken, for tlie poi)ular language is always simple and graphic : in tl\e scientific 
diction, frauKul by scholars, there is more divoigence. Hence, for instance, 
most of tlie so-called Germanisms in Latin belong to the style of comedies, 
letters, etc. 

* See on the other hand Kre])s, Ohserv. Pr<vf. p. 3. Leusden {do. Dialectis, 
J). 37) says most a])surdly, " Nos non fugit carmina istorum hominum (tragieor.) 
iiinumeris Hebraismis ef:se contaminata." Fischer accordingly liuds Hebraisms 
in the poems of Homer (at/ Leusd. p. 114). 


common to both languages, tlioir education renders it, in general, 
more probable that the phrase was imnuidiately derived from the 
Hebrew, and notborrowed from the refined written language of Greece. 

((J) These uncritical collectors, moreover, raked together very 
many passages from Greek authors which contain (a) the same word, 
indeed, but in a different sense ; or (ß) phrases which are merely 
similar, not exactly parallel. 

(e) They even used the Byzantine writers without scruple, though 
many constituents of the Hebraistic diction of the N. T. may have 
found their way into the language of these writers through the 
medium of the church, — a supposition which in particular instances 
may be shown to be even probable, comp. Niebuhr, Index to Agathias, 
s. V. ^TjiJiLova-Oat, — and though these writers at all events cannot be 
adduced as evidence for ancient Greek purity of expression. 

(/) Lastly, they passed over many phrases altogether in silence, 
and were compelled to pass them over, because they are undeniably 

Their evidence, therefore, was either incomplete or beside the 
mark. Most of the Purist writers, too, restricted themselves by 
preference to the lexical element ; Georgi alone took up the gram- 
matical, and treated it with a copiousness founded on extensive 

A few remarkable examples shall be given in proof of the above 
assertions. 2 

(a) On Mt. v. 6, TretvcüJ/rcs Koi Si\f/u)VT€s rrjv StKaLO(rvv7)v, passages 
are adduced from Xenophon, ^schines, Lucian, Artemidorus, to 
prove that SLifnjv in this (figurati\e) sense is pure Greek. But as 
the same figure is found (in Latin and) in almost all languages, 
it is no more a Grsecism than a Hebraism. The same may be 
said of laOUiv (Kareo-OUiv) figur. consume: this cannot be proved 
from Iliad 23. 182 to be a Graecism, or from Dt. xxxii. 22, &c., to be 
a Hebraism, but is common to all languages. For the same reason 
we could well spare the parallels to yevea generation, ie. the men of 
a particular generation (Georgi, Vind. p. 39), to x^^p power, to 6 KvpLo<; 
Trj<s olKia<;, and the like. But it is really laughable to be referred 
on Mt. X. 27, Acr/pv^are evrt rtuv Sw/xaTiov, to j^SOp 139. 1, cpt^o? ctti' 
Ttvos Süj/xaros ccrrw?. Such superfluous and indeed absurd observa- 
tions abound in Pfochen's work. 

(b) That KOLfxao-Bai signifies morl is proved from Iliad 11. 241, 
KOLjxi^a-aTo ;^ol\k€oj/ vttvov (Georgi, Find. p. 122 sqq.), and from Soph. 
Electr. 510 ; that o-Trep/xa is used by the Greeks also in the sense of 
proles is shown by passages mainly taken from the poets, as Eurip. 
Iph. Aul 524, Iph. Taur. 987, Hec. 254, and Soph. Electr. 1508 
(Georgi p. 87 sqq.) ; that Trot/xatVctv means regere is proved from 
Anacr. 57. 8 ; that tSctf or Oeuipdv Odvarov is good Greek, from Soph. 

^ This applies also to J. E. Ostermann, whose Positiones philologicce Grcecum 
N. T. contexlum concernentes are reprinted in Crenii Exercitatt. fasc. II. p. 485 

* Compare also Mori Acroas. I. c. p. 222 sqq. 



Eledr. 205 (Schwarz, Comm. p. 410), or from SipKear6at ktvttov^ 
cTKOTov, in the tragedians. For iror-qpLov ttivclv in a figurative sense 
(Mt. XX. 22), Schwarz quotes ^Eschyl. Agam. 1397. The use of 
TTtiTTiiv in the sense of irritum esse, which is one of the regular mean- 
ings of the corresponding Hebrew word, Schwarz defends by the 
figurative phrase in Plat, Phileh. 22 e, SoKet rj^ovr) ctol TreirToyKevai 
KaOaTrepel irX-qyiica vtto TUiV vvv Srj XoyoiV. 

(c) We may safely regard the phrase yivwo-KeLv avSpa — though 
not unknown to the Greeks, see Jacobs ad Philostrat. Imagg. p. 583 
— as immediately derived by the N. T. writers from the very com- 
mon {J^''{< vy • in the N. T., therefore, it is a Hebraism. Similarly, 
cnrXdyxva compassion, irjpd land as opposed to water (Fischer ad 
Leusd. Dial. 31), x^t^o? shore, o-ro/xa as used of the sword, edge,^ 
Tra^vvcLV to he stupid, foolish, KvpLO<s Kvptwv, chip^earOac et? rov koct/xov, 
were probably formed in the first instance on the model of Hebrew 
words and phrases, and cannot be proved to be genuine Greek 
by parallels from Herodotus, ^lian, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, 
Philostratus, and others. 

(d) (a) That cv is used by Greek writers to denote the instru- 
ment (which within certain limits is true), Pfochen proves from such 
passages as Trkeiov iv tols vavcri (Xen.), rjXOc. . . . iv vrfc fxeXatvy 
(Hesiod) ! That good Greek authors use prjfxa for res is shown 
from Plat. Legg. 797 C, tovtov tov re p-q/jcaros /cat Tov 86y/xaTO<? ovk 
ihaL t,'f)iJLLav fxdloi, where prjixa may be rendered expression, asser- 
tion. XopTd^€Lv fill, feed (of men), is supported by Plat. Bej). 2. 
372, where the word is used of swine/ That t^-qr^iv \l/vxrjv rtvo? is 
good Greek is shown from Eur. Ion 1112, Thuc. 6. 27, al., where 
^'QTuv is used alone, in the sense of insidiari, or rather search for (in 
order to kill) ! That 6(^dXr]ixa signifies sin in pure Greek, Schwarz 
professes to prove from Plat. Cratyl. 400 c, where however 6^eiX6- 
fx€va means debita, as elsewhere. In the same way, most of the 
passages adduced by Georgi (Ilierocr. p. 36 sq., 186 sq.), to prove 
that €19 and iv are interchanged in the best Greek authors, as in 
the N. T., are altogether inappropriate. Compare also Krebs, Obs. 
p. 14 sq. 

(ß) To prove that evpta-KeLv x"^P'-^ (eXeos) irapd tlvl is not a Hebraism, 
Georgi (Vind. p. 116) quotes evplaKio-Oac rrjv dpr)V7)v, TYjv Swpedv, from 
Demosthenes ; as if the Hebraism did not rather consist in the whole 
phrase (for the use of find for attain is certainly no Hebraism), and 
as if tlie difference in the voice of the verb were of no consequence 
whatever. For Trorryptov sm's Palairet quotes such phrases as 
Kparrjp lufiaro'; (Aristoph. Acham.) ; for irUTnv irritum esse Schwarz 
Vjrings forward Plat. Eutlcyphr. 14 d, ov xa/j^««- TrccretTat o, rt av cittois* 
The familiar raerismus diro fxiKpov cws /ncyoAov is claimed as pure 
Greek ^ on the authority of passages in which ovtc fxiya ovtc o-puKpov 
occurs. But it is not the merismus in itself that is Hebraistic, but 

' Compare however Boissonade, Nie. p. 282. 

2 Georgi, Vind. p. 310 S(iq., Schwarz, Cornmcnt. p. 917. Compare Schajfer, 
Julian, p. xxi. 


only tlie precise ])hraso ci-rro fi. eoxj /icy., wliicli ia not foiuul oailiiT 
than Theophan. cont. p. Gl 5 (Bokk.). Ka/j7ro? Trj<i kolX.U<;, oo-^i'k)?, is 
supported (Georgi, Find. p. 304) by passages in wliich Kapirik is 
used by itself of luniian ofTsprinuj. Tliat Suo hvo, tioo and tu;o, is 
pure Greek, does not follow from ttXcoi/ irXiov^ m,ore and more 
(Aristoph. Nuh.) : instances must be produced in which the repeated 
cardinal stands for ava 8uo, dva rpet?, k.tX. {% 37. 3). That rtOivai 
€1? TO. wra is pure Greek, is not proved by oaaa 8' ciKouoras ekeOefx-qv 
(Callim.) : the latter phrase is of an entirely different character. 
These examples might be multiplied indefinitely. Georgi's defence 
{Vind. p. 25) of the use of 6 d8cA(^os for alter from Arrian and 
Epictetus is especially ridiculous. 

(e) Schwarz (p. 1245) quotes Nicctas, to prove that (rrrjpt^eLv ro 
7rpd?a)7roi/ and ivuiTL^iaOai are pure Greek; and Palairet justifies 
the use of rj $r)pd for continens from Jo. Cinnam. Hist. 4. p. 183. 
Still more singular is Pfochen's reference to Lucian, Mcrt. Peregr. 
c. 13, as justifying the use of Kotvo? with the meaning immundus: 
Lucian is scoffingly using a Jewish (Christian) expression. 

(/) Of the many words and phrases which these writers have 
entirely passed over in silence, we will only mention TrposcuTrov 
Xafxßavav, <rapi kol al/aa, vto? clp-qvY)';, l^ep-^^acrOaL i$ 6a(}>vos tivo?, 
-n-ouLv eA-eo? (x^piv) fj^^rd tlvos, diroKpLvecrOaL when no proper question 
precedes, iioixoXoyela-OaL $eQ give thanks to God. There are many 
others : see below § 3. 

After Salmasius, whose work De Lingua Hellenistica had been 
entirely forgotten by later scholars, Sturz ^ first led the way to an 
accurate estimate of the N. T. language, especially in regard to its 
Greek basis. Hence Keil (Lehrb. der Hermen, p. 11 sq.), Bertholdt 
(Einl. in d. Bib. 1 Th. p. 155 sq.), Eichhorn (Einl. ins N. T. IV. p. 96 
sqq.), and Schott (Isagoge in N. T. p. 497 sqq.), have treated this 
subject more satisfactorily than many earlier writers, though by no 
means exhaustively or with the necessary scientific precision. In 
both respects H. Planck has surpassed his predecessors, in his De 
vera natura atque indole orationis Grcecce N. T. Commentat. (Gott. 
1810) : 2 avoiding a fundamental error into which Sturz had fallen, 
he was the first who clearly, and in the main accurately, unfolded the 
character of the N. T. diction. ^ 

' F. W. Sturz, De Dlalecto Alexandrina (Lips. 1784, Ger. 1788-1793 ; 2n(l 
edition, enlarged, Lips. 1809). Valuable remarks on this work may be found in 
the Heidelb. Jahrb. 1810, Heft xviii. p. 266 sqq. [Sturz 's treatise may also be 
found in Valpy's edition of Steph. Thesaurus, vol. I. p. cliii. sqq.] 

^ This treatise is included in Rosenmiiller's Commentationes Theologicce, I. i. 
p. 112 sqq. [It is translated in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. I. pp. 91-188.] 

^ Compare also his Pr. Observatt. qucedam ad hist, verbi Gr. H. T. (Gott. 
1821, and in Rosenmiiller's Comm. Theol. I. i. p. 193 sqq.) See further (De 
Wette in) the A. Lit. Z. 1816. No. xxix. p. 306. 


Section IL 


In the aQ:e of Alexander the Great and his successors the 
Greek language underwent an internal change of a twofold kind. 
On the one hand, a literary prose language was formed, having 
the Attic dialect as its basis, but distinguished from it by the 
admission of a common Greek element, and even by many pro- 
vincialism.s: this is known as rj koivtj or eWrjvcKr] 8Ld\€KTo<;. On 
the other hand, there arose a language of common life, a popu- 
lar spoken language, in which the peculiarities of the various 
dialects, which had hitherto been confined to particular sections 
of the Greek nation, were fused together, the Macedonian ele- 
ment being most prominent.^ This spoken Greek — which again 
varied to some extent in the different provinces of Asia and Africa 
that were subject to the Macedonian rule — is the true basis of 
the language of the LXX and the Apocrypha, and also of the 
IST. T. language. Its characteristics, amongst which must also 
be included a neglect of nice distinctions and a continued effort 
after perspicuity and convenience of expression, may fitly be 
divided into Lexical and Grammatical. 

The older works on the Greek dialects are now nearly useless, 
especially as regards the kolvt] StaAcKTo?. The subject is best treated 
in brief by Matthise, Ausf. Gramm. §§ 1-8, and (still more thoroughly) 
by Buttmann, jiusf. Syrachl. I. 1-8 ; also, though not with perfect 
accuracy, by H. Planck, /. c. pp. 13-23 [Bih. Cab. I. 113 sqq.]. Com- 
pare also Tittmann, Syn. I. 262 sq., and Bernhardy p. 28 sqq. (Don. 
pp. 1-4.) 2 

The Jews of Egypt and Syria ^ — of these alone we are now speaking 

^ Sturz, p. 26 S(iq. But the subject deserves a new ami tliorough investi- 
gation : it can scarcely be disposed of by such dicta as that quoted by Thiersch, 
JJe Pent. At. p. 74. 

2 [The peculiarities of the Greek spoken in different countries and at 
difierent periods are carefully reviewed by Mullach, Griech. Vulyarsprache, 
pp. 1-107.] 

^ It is not possil)le to point out with exactness what belonged to the language 
of Alexandria, and what was or became peculiar to the Greek dialect of Syria 
(and Palestine) ; and the in([uiry is not of great importance, even for the N. T. 
Eichhorn 's attempt {Mini, ins N. T. IV. 124 scpp) was a failure, and could not 
be otherwise, as it was conducted with little critical accuracy. 'El^^uptaTtlv, a 
word us('(l by Demosthenes and by many writers from the time of Polybius, is 
said by Eichhorn to have ])een a late addition to the Alexandrian dialect ; and 
^iv'i^iiv, hoHpitio cxcipcre, wliich is found in Xenoi)h()n and even in Homer, is 
j)ronounced Alexandrian ! To what extent Gie(;k was spoken by the Jews of 
Syria (and I'a](;stine), we need not here in(püre. On this see Paulus, JJe Judoiis 
Paloist. J«HU et ajjofit. tcwj/ore non Aram, dialecto sed Graxa quoque locutis 
(Jen. 1803) ; Hug, Introd. II. § 10 ; Winer, liWB. II. p. 502 ; Schleiormacher, 


— learned Greek in tlie first instance by intercourse with tliose wlio 
spoke Greek, not from books ; ^ lience we need not wonder tliat in 
writing they usually retained the peculiarities of the popular spoken 
language. To this class belonged the LXX, the N. T. writers, and 
the authors of the Palestinian apocryphal books. It is only in the 
writings of a few learned Jews who prized and studied Grecian litera- 
ture, such as Philo and Josephus,-^ that we find a nearer approach to 
ordinary written Greek. We have but an imperfect knowledge of this 
spoken language,^ but a comparison of Hellenistic Greek (apart from 
its Hebraic element) with the later written Greek enables us to infer 
that the spoken language had diverged still more widely than the 
written from ancient elegance, admitting new and provincial words 
and forms in greater number, neglecting more decidedly nice dis- 
tinctions in construction and expression, misusing grammatical com- 
binations through forgetfulness of their origin and principle, and 
extending farther many corruptions which were already appearing in 
the literary language. Its main characteristic, however, continued to 
be an intermixture of the previously distinct dialects (Lob. Faih. I. 9), 
of such a kind that the Greek spoken in each province had as its basis 
the dialect formerly current there : thus Atticisms and Dorisms pre- 
dominated in Alexandrian Greek. From the dialect spoken in Egypt, 
especially in Alexandria (dialedus Alexandrina),^ Hellenistic Greek 
was immediately derived. 

Jlerm. p. 61 sq. [See also Diodati, De Chriato Greece loquente (Xaples, 1767 ; 
reprinted 1843, with a preface by Dr. Dobbin) ; Davidson, Introd. to N. T. 
(1848) I. 37-44; Greswell, Dl<isertatiom, I. 136 sqq. (2nd ed.); Grinfield, 
Apology for the LXX, pp. 77, 184 ; Smith, Did. of Bible, ii. 531 ; Roberts, 
Discussions on the Gospels, pp. 1-316. The subject is most fully examined 
by Dr. Roberts, whose conclusion is that Greek was "the common language of 
public intercourse " at this time. See further Schürer, Lehrh. d. neut. Zeit- 
geschichte, p. 376 sq. ; and comp. Westcott, St. John, p. Iviii.] 

^ Tliat the reading of the LXX contributed to the formation of their Greek 
stj'^le makes no essential difference here, as we are now referring immediately to 
the national Greek element. It is now generally acknowledged that even the 
apostle Paul cannot be supposed to have received a learned Greek education 
(amongst others see Pfochen, p. 178). He certainly displays greater facility in 
writing Greek than the Palestinian apostles, but this he might easily acquire in 
Asia Minor and through his extensive intercourse with native Greeks, some of 
whom were persons of learning and distinction. Küster {Stud. u. Krit. 1854, 2), 
to prove that Paul formed his style on the model of Demosthenes, collects from 
this orator a number of parallel words and phrases ; nearly all of these, however, 
Paul might acquire from the spoken language of educated Greeks, and others 
are not really parallel. In the case of men who moved so much among Greeks, 
(copiousness and ease of style furnish no proof of acquaintance with Greek 

^ A comparison of the earlier books of the Antiquities of Josephus with the 
corresponding portions of the LXX will clearly show that his style cannot be 
placed on the same level with that of the LXX, or even of the N. T., and will 
exhibit the difference between the Jewish and the Greek style of narration. 
Compare further Schleieimacher, Herrn, p. 63. 

^ Hence it will never be possible to supply the want of which Schleiermacher 
complains {Herrn. \). 59), and give a "complete view of the language of common 

* On this subject {-rift tjjs ' AXilavtfiuv lixX'iKTov) the grammarians Iren?eus 
(Pacatus) and Demetrius Ixion wrote special treatises, which are now lost : 


AVe proceed to trace in detail the later elements found in Hellenistic 
Greek, noticing first the lexical peculiarities, and then the grammatical, 
which are less conspicuous. This inquiry must be founded on the 
researches of Sturz, Planck, Lobeck, Boissonade, and others ; ^ and 
to their works the reader is referred for citations — mainly from the 
writers of the KoivrJ, Polybius, Plutarch, Strabo, ^lian, Artemidorus, 
Appian, Heliodorus, Sextus Empiricus, Arrian, &c.2 — in proof of 
the various particulars. We mark with an asterisk whatever appears 
to belong exclusively to the popular spoken language, and does not 
occur in any profane author.^ 


(a) The later dialect comprehended words and forms from all the 
dialects without distinction.^ 

(i) Attic : vaXo<i (weXos, Lob. p. 309), 6 (TK6TO<i (to or.), dero9 (aiero?, 
Herrn. Free/, ad Soph. Aj. p. 19), ^laX-q (cfniXr)), akrjOetv (Lob. p. 

151),^ Trpvjxva (TrpvixvT), Lob. p. 331), tAews (t'Aaos). 

(2) Doric : ttlol^u) (jrLet,u)) Kkißavo<i [Kpißavos, Lob. p. 179), 17 Ai/xo? 
(6 A.), TToia grass (for vrotr/ or ttoo) ; also probably /Se/x/^pavas, quoted 

see Sturz, p. 24, and comp. p. 19 sq. The well-known Rosetta inscription is a 
specimen of this dialect : other extant monuments will be found in A. Peyron's 
Papyri Grceci reg. Taurin. Musei jEgyptii ed. et illustrati (Turin, 1827, 2 vols. 
4to.), and his lllustrazione di due papiri greco-egizi delV imper. Tnnseo di Vienna 
(in the Memorie dell' academ. di Torino, Tom. 33, p. 151 sqq., of the historical 
class) ; Description of the Greek papyri in the British Museum (London, 1839, 
Part i.) ; J. A. Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de I'Egypte 
d-c. (Paris, 1842, 1848, 2 torn.) [See also Mullach, Vulgarsp. p. 15 sqq.] 

1 But see also Olearius, De Stylo N. T. p. 279 sqq. 

'^ The Fathers and the books of Roman law have hitherto been almost entirely 
neglected in the investigation of later Greek ; to the latter frequent reference 
will be made in the course of this work. [See Mullach, p. 31 S(]q., 51.] How 
far the N. T. diction through the medium of the Cliurch affected the later 
Byzantine Greek, is reserved for special inquiry. The spurious apocryphal 
books of the 0. T. {Libri Pseudepigraphi) and the apocryphal books of the 
N. T. are now accessible in a more complete fonn and with a better text (the 
latter books through the labours of Tischendorf), and may be used for points of 
detail : the style of these })roductions as a whole (though in this respect they 
differ among themselves) is so wretched, that the N. T. diction appears classic 
(»reek in comparison. Compare Tisch. De evangelior. apocryph. origine et iisu, in 
•the Verhandelingen uitgeven door het Haagsche Genootschap, Jjc. (Pt. 12. 1851). 

^ The (ireek grammarians, particularly Thomas Magister (latest edition, 
Ritschl's : Halle, 1832), specify as common Greek much that is found even in 
Attic writers : see e.g. 6iju.iXios in Thom. M. p. 437, ipivvüiu.oci ib. p. 363. Indeed 
they are not free from even gross mistakes ; comp. Oudendorp ad Thorn. M. 
J). 903. Much however that made its way into the written language after 
Alexander the; Great may probably have existed in the spoken language at an 
earlier date : this was p(!ih:n)s the case with errpnvtav, wliich we meet with first 
in the jtoets of the new comedy. — Tlie N. T. writers sometimes use words and 
forms wliieh are jmjferred l)y the Atticists, instead of those which tliey assign 
to common Greek : as ;^p/to-TOTr,i, Th. M. p. 921, — ri (not «) Xalka.^, ib. p. 5G4. 

* [In this section, (a), I have added in each case the other form of the word : 
thus Lobeck speaks of i'aX«? as the Attic form, not i/sAaj. ] 

■' \^\Xr,6uv is rejected by tiie Atticists, and Lobe(;k I.e. agrees with them in the 
njain : üxiu is the r(!gular Attic form, — "the later writers used in the present 
i.>.n6uy which however was still an ancient form." Irr. V . s. v.] 


by Zouaras from 2 Tim. iv. 13, whore, however, all our MSS. have 
/xc/t/?., see Sturz, Zoiiarm (jlossce sacra II. p. 16 (Grimmjc, 1820). 

(3) Ionic : yoyyi^^co (Lob. p. 3,^8), pT^aa-u) (pr;yj/v/xt), 7rprjvri<i (Trpai/ry?, 
— yet TTp-qvrj^ is ibnnd in Aristotle, Lob. p. 431), ßaßjxo^; (ßa(Tfx6<:, 
Lob. p. 324), aKopTTt^eLv (Lob. p. 218), äpar^v, Buttm. 1. 84 (Jelf 33), 
comp. Fritz. liom. I. 78.^ To Ionic and Doric Greek belong 
€tA.t(rcr€tj/ (Rev. vi. 14 v. /., comp. Matth. 12. 4), <^vü> in an intransi- 
tive sense, H. xii. 15, comp. Babr. 64.^ 

The grammarians note as Macedonian TrapefxßoXrj camp (Lob. p. 
377, comp. Schwarz, Solcec. Ap. 66), pvfxy] street ; as of Cyrensean 
origin, ßowo'; hill (Lob. p. 355);^ as Syracusan, the imperative 
ctTTov (Fritz. Mark, p. 515). 

(b) Words W'hicli existed in the older language now received new 
meanings; as TrapaKaXuv and epuirav* intreat, TraiSeveii/ chastise,^ 
€V)^apL(rT€.iv thank (Lob. p. 18), avaKXlveiv [di/a/cA.iVto'öat], avaTTLiTTeiVy 
avaKuaOaL recline at table (Lob, p. 216), aTroKpLOijvat answer (Lob. p. 
108), di/TtA.cye6v oppose,^ air ot da (T^cr 6 ai valerc jubere, renuntiare (Lob. 
p. 23), crvyKplvuv compare (Lob. p. 278), 8at/xu)v, 8at/xdv6ov evil spirit,^ 
JuXov (living) tree (Lidd. and Scott s. v.), StaTroveio-^at cegre ferre* 
o-Tcyetv Iwld off, endure,^ creßd^ccrßaL reverence ( = o-eßea-äaL, Fritz. 
JRom. L 74), avvca-Trjfxt prove, establish (Fritz. Bom. I. 159), 
XpTjp-aTL^etv be called (Fritz. Bom. II. 9), cf>Odv€Lv come, arrive 
(Fritz. Bom. II. 356), Ke</)aAt9 volume, roll (Bleek on H. x. 7), 
iva-^-qfxiiiv one of noble station (Lob. p. 333), xj/wfXL^av and ^opTa^civ 
feed, nourish,*'^ oij/wvLov pay (Sturz y. 187), 6\}/dpiov fish, ipevyio-Oat 
eloqui (Lob. p. 63), cVto-reAAeiv write a letter (iTnarToXrj), irepLcnraxTOat 
negotiis distrahi (Lob. p. 415), xrw/xa corpse^ (Lob. p. 375), yevvrj/xara 

^ [Tischendorf now receives the Ionic j/tev in Mk. iv. 28, and in L. xiii. 34 the 
Doric opvil : in Rev. iii. 16 5< has x^'^P^s-] 

* [On the iEolic ktzwu {x^'/vu) see below, § 15 (Jelf 10. 6).] 

^ [On this word see Donaldson, New Cr. p. 701 ; Blakesley, Herod, i. 556 sqq.] 
** [On this word and the next see Ellicott's notes on E, vi. 4, Col. i. 12.] 
^ [So Fritzsche {Rom. II. 428), " Valere serioribus Grsecis uvriXiynv non solum 
repugnare verbis sed etiam reniti re et /actis frustra neges : " see also Alf. on H. 
xii. 3. Meyer (on Rom. x. 21) maintains that this verb always denotes opposi- 
tion in words. ] 

^ That is, as its inherent signification, for the word is used in reference to an 
evil demon as early as Homer {Iliad 8. 166) : of the same kind is also Dinarch. 
a/lv. Demosth. § 30. p. 155 (Bekker), a passage quoted by recent writers. Even 
the Byzantines, to speak with exactness, add Ko-KÖi to }uiju.uv (Agath. 114. 4). 

^ [On this word see Alford on 1 C. ix. 12 ; on trwiffrnfti, Ellic. on G. ii. 18 ; on 
^öävuv, Ellic. on Ph. iii. 16 ; on Kiipakls, Alford on H. x. 7.] 

* This extension of meaning might in itself be considered a Hebraism. It 
had become customary to use ^ui/,iZ,uv as entirely equivalent to 7"'3Xn (comp. 

Grimm on Wis. xvi. 20), like ;^;a/>Ta^£/y, which in Greek authors is not applied to 
persons. (Against Pfochen see Solanus in Rhenferd, p. 297. ) It is uncertain 
whether '^ix.eävo for ^uhiKx belongs to the later spoken language, or whether it was 
coined by the LXX : the former supposition seems to me more probable, since 
IdliKcc. is nearer than 'hixalvo to the Hebrew niB^y U^Pi^ [See Lightfoot's note 
on G. i. 18, quoted below, § 37.] " '■ " " '• 

^ [Without any dependent genitive, as in Mt. xxiv. 28 ; see Lidd. and Scott 
s. v., and comp. Paley, iEsch. Suppl. 647 (662).] 


fruges (Lob. p. 286), a-xo^rj scJiool (Lob. p. 401), 6vp€.6<; large (door- 
shajjed) shield (Lob. p. 366), Sw/xa roof, XoLßrj sacrifice (Babr. 23. 5),^ 
pvixT] street (Lob. p. 404), Trapprjcrta assurance, confidence, XaXid speech 
(dialect), Xap^iras lawp,^ Karaa-ToXij long robe,* ^ vwi noiv (in Attic, at 
this verij moment, see Fritz. Rom. L 182), crraixvo<i not, as in classical 
Greek, a vessel for holding liquids merely (Babr. 108. 18). A special 
peculiarity is the use of neuter verbs in a transitive * or causative 
sense, as ixaOyjrevav (Mt. xxviii. 19), OpLafxßevav (2 C. ii. 14? — see 
however Meyer in loc.).^ The LXX so use even ^•^v, ßaa-iX^vetv, and 
many other verbs (comp, particularly Ps. xl. 3, cxviii. 50, cxxxvii. 7, 
al.), comp. § 32. 1 : see Lydius, de Me Mil. 6. 3, and especially Lob. 
Soph. Aj. p. 382. Me^uoros, used by earlier writers of women only, 
was now applied to both sexes (Lob. p. 151, Schsefer, Ind. ad ^sojp. 
p. 144). 

(c) Certain words and forms which in ancient Greek were rare, 
or were used only in poetry and in the higher style of composition, 
now came into ordinary use, and were indeed preferred, even in prose ; 
as av6cvT€iv to have authority over (Lob. p. 120), fxea-ovvKTcov (Th. M. 
p. 609, Lob. p. 53), oAaAiyros (?), OeocrTvyrj<; (Pollux L 21), eaOrja-L^ 
(Th. M. p. 370), aXeKTwp (aXcKTpvwv, Lob. p. 229), ßp^x^tv irrigare 
(Lob. p. 291), e'o-öco (for cVÖ/w, Irr. V. s. v.). To this head Eichhorn 
{^Einl. ins N. T. IV. 127) refers Oea-ßac n Iv rfj KapSta, on the ground 
that this phrase, which belongs to the stately language of the poets 
(especially the tragedians), is used by the N. T. writers in the 
plainest prose. But the Homeric iv ^peal Oicrdat is only a similar, 
not an identical phrase. That which the same writer quotes as a 
stately formula, awT-qpetv iv rfj KapSta, never occurs without emphasis 
in the N. T. Kopdauov, on the other hand, is an example of a word 
which passed from the language of ordinary life into the written 
language (compare the German Mädel), losing its accessory meaning 
(Lob. p. 74).6 

(d) Many words which had long been in use received a new 
form or pronunciation, by which the older was in most cases super- 
seded : as juteroiKccrta (yaerotKi'a), iKeata (tKereta, Lob. p. 504), avd- 
Ocfxa {avdOrjixaj^ avd(TT€/xa, ycvicrta {yeviOXia, Lob. p. 104), yXiacr- 

^ [With the reading a.pvoc Xoißhv Txputrpf^iTv ; but Lachmann reads kot-rov. 
The word does not occur in the Greek Bible. ] 

^ [This meaning is given in Steph. Thesaur. (ed. Hase) and in Host and 
Palm's Lex., but Mt. xxv is the only example quoted. In the LXX 'ka^-Tnki 

is the regular equivalent of ^>^ torch ; once, in Dan. v. 5 (Theodot), it stands 

for xnK^"l3J candelabrum. In Mt. xxv, Trench {Syn. s. v. ), Olshausen, Jahn 

{Arch. B. § 40), and others suppose that a kind of torch is referred to : A. xx. 
8 is siuiilar.] 

•^ [See Ellic. on 1 Tim. ii. 9.] 

* Transitive verbs can be handled in construction more conveniently than 
intransitive. In later (ireek we lind even TposrecTTnv tiv«. {Acta Apocr. p. 172), 
and in German "etwas widersitnichen " is bciconiing more and more eonnnon. 
In mercantile language we lutar "das KiibiJl int (jcfrcujt." 

'•' [Meyer renders tliis, " Who ever triunqihs over us : " see Alf. in Zoc. ] 

® [it was forujerly used only "in familiari sermone de puellis inferioris sor- 
tis, cum tuTtX/ir^f (jiiodam :" Lob. I. c] 

^ See Schaifer, Plutarch V. p. 11, [and Ellicott and Lighlfoot on G. i. 8]. 


(TOKOfxov (y\u)(r(TOKoiJiiL(n% Lob. p. 98), iKiraXat (waXaL, Lob. p. 4.j), 
i-)(Oe<; (x^^'^)> c^aTTti/a (c^aTrtV?/?), atxTy/xa (atrv^o-t?),' ij/ivaixa (if/€vdo% 
Sallior «(Z 77/. i1/. p. 927), uTitti/rT^o-ts {d-rrdvTrjixa), yyr](rL<i {yyefxovui), 
Xvxvta (XvxvLov^ Lob. p. 314), viKOS (vikt;. Lob. p. 047), oLKoSofir} 
{oiKoS6fJL7j(rL<;,'^ Lob. p. 490), üi/ctSto-/xo5 (Lob. p. 512, oi/eiSo?, oi/ct8to-/xa 
Her. 2. 133), oTrrao-ta (oi/^t?), r; opKUi/xüatd (ra opKiofxaata), jXLaOaTTOöoa-ia 
(ixLo-OoSocTLa), (TvyKvpla (^(TvyKvpr}(TL<;), dirocTTaa-La {aTr6(TTacn<;, Lob. p. 
528), voD^ecrta (vovOeTrjcTLS, Lob. p. 512), aTraprttr/xo? (dTraprto-ts), 
yxcXi'cro"ios (/txeAt'o-o-€tos), TroraTro? (7ro8a7ro9, Lob. p. 5G), ßaa-iXicrcra 
{ßacrlXeLo),'^ /xolxoXl<; (/xoi;(a9, Lob. p. 452), iJiOv6(f>0aXfxo<; (ercpo- 
(fiOaX/xo^;, Lob. p. 136), Kafx/jiveLV (/cara/xv-cti/, Sturz p. 173), oi//ip,o? 
(oi/^io?. Lob. p. 52), 6 irXycTLuv (6 rrlXas:), 7rpoS7yAvros (e7rr;Xu?, ValcK. 

(ic? Amman, p. 32), cfiva-iova-Oat (cfivadv) be puffed up (used figur. 
Babr. 114), drei/t^eci/ since Polybius for drci/t^eo-öat (Rost and Palm 
s. v.), e/c;(tVeti/ (€K;^€€ti/, Lob. p. 72G), (XTrjKO) (from ecTTrjKa stand, 
Buttm. IL 36), dpyos as an adj. of /Aree terminations (Lob. p. 105), 
^ret^o?, vocTcroi and voaaLu. {ytocrcroL veocrcTLd, Til. M. p. 626, Lob. 
J). 206), TTcrdo^at (TreVo/xat, Lob. p. 581), dTrcA/ri^eti/ (dTroyti/wcTKeiv), 
iiv7rvi^€iv (dcfiVTrvi^eLV, Lob. p. 224), pai/Tt^ctv (patveiv), SeKarovv 
(ScAcareuetv), dpoTpidv {dpovv, Lob, p. 254), ßtßXaplhov'^ [ßißXihov, 
ßcßXtSdpLov), {j/Lx^ov {4^ti), TafjLCLOV (ra/xtctov, Lob. p. 493), Kara- 
TTOi/Tc^etv (/caraTroi/roiJi', Lob. p. 361), Trapa^povia {Trapa^poa-vvrj)* 
TTTvov (tttcov, Lob. p. 321), if/L6vpL(rT7]<i (ij/LOvpo<;, Til. M. p. 927), 
wrdpLov, and most of the diminutives in aptor, as 7rat8dptoi/, dvdptov 
(Fritz, il/ar/i;, p. 638). 'AKp6ßv(TTo<; and aKpoßvaria are purely Alex- 
andrian, having been first used by the LXX (Fritz. Eom. 1. 136). 

For verbs in p.t we find forms in w pure, as dp,i/i;cü for 6p.vvixi (Th. 
M. p. 648). Compare also ^vpdui for ^i;p€co (Th. M. p. 642, Phot. 
Lex. p. 313, Lob. p. 205, and ad Soph. Aj. p. 181), the present 
ßapiui for ßapvvü) (Th. M. p. 141), aapovv for ora/petv (Lob. p. 83), 
XoXdv (xoXovaÖat), i^ov elvat for iielvac (Foertsch, Be locis Lysice, 
p. 60). Verbs used in the older Avritten language as middle or de- 
ponent now receive active forms ; as ^pudcro-cti/ A. iv. 25 (from Ps. 
ii 1), dyaXXidv L. i. 47, €vayy€Xi^cLv [Rev. X. 7, 1 Sam. xxxi. 9], 
Lob. p. 268. Compound verbs, where the meaning itself was not 
extended by the preposition, were preferred to the less graphic and 
less sonorous simple verbs ; ^ and, as sometimes even compound 

' [See Ellicott on Ph. iv. 6.] 

- [And olKolofjt.n/x.a, Lob. I. c. ; see EUic. on E. ii. 21.] 

^ Similarly /t^/fTira (Pa j9?/r. Taur. 9. li)h'o\\\Upi6;: compare further Sturz p. 173. 

* That, conversely, simple verbs were sometimes used instead of compound 
by later writers, Tischendorf {Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 505) seeks to prove from 
the phrase ßovXhv t/^ev«/, arguing that a classical author would have said ß. 
•rpoTifivai. But the two expressions probably have different meanings : see 
Eaphel on A. xxvii. 12. More probable examples would be two verbs quoted 
below under (e), ^uyfiXTi^nv and (liarpi^nv — for which the written language 
has Ttupa.oii'y/u.a.ri^iiv and iK^ixTpi^nv, — and rocpTapeuv for xccrocTttprecpovv. Simi- 
larly the Prussian law style uses Führung for Auliuhrung. [See Tiscli. Proleg. 
N. T. p. 59 (ed. 7), where several additional examples are given. The following 
are from the N, T. : Ipeordiv Mk. viii. 5, KpUTruv Mt. xi. 25, apvzircca-^ai L. ix. 23, 
aöpoiZ^itv L. xxiv. 33, for which the more familiar i'npuTa.v, a.-roKpuTmiv, 
ä.'ra.pvriffaaecii, avvuöpo'i'^uv, have been substituted in many MSS.] 


verbs did not appear sufficiently expressive, many double compounds 
were formed. ^ For several nouns, mostly denoting parts of the 
human body, diminutive forms, losing their special meaning, came 
into common use in colloquial language ; as (inW (comp. Fischer, 
Proluss. p. 10, Lob. p. 211), cfiopriov.^ Lastly, many substantives 
received a change in gender, which was sometimes accompanied by 
a change of termination : see § 8. Rem. and § 9. Rem. 2. 

(e) Entirely new words and expressions^ were framed, espe- 
cially by composition, — mainly in order to meet new wants : as 
aXAorptoeTTtcr/coTro?,* dj/^pcüTrapecr/cos (Lob. p. 621), oA-okAt^pos, ctycvca- 
AoyTyrog,* ai/xaT€K;^i'cria,* SiKaioKpLaia, acTO/xeTpLOv, vv)(6r}fxepov (Sturz 
p. 186), 'KXy]po<f)opia (Theophan. p. 132), KaAoTroietv (Lob. p. 199), 
alx^lj.a\o}TLt,eLv and aijj^/xaAwrevetv (for at;(/x,aA.ü>TOv ttouIv, Th. M. p. 23, 
Lob. p. 442), ix€crLTe.veLv, yvfxvrjrevetv, ayaOoiroulv (ayaOoepyeiv) for 
dyaOov Troteiv (Lob. p. 675), dyaXAiao-i9, opoOeata, avTiXvTpov* ck- 
fj.VKTrjpi^€iv* aXeKTOpo(}iü)Via (Lob. p. 229), aTTOKecfiaXi^etv (Lob. p. 341), 
avrairoKp [veer Oat (^sop. 272, ed. De Fur.), i^ovOevalv (Lob. p. 182, 
Schsef. Ind. ad jEsop. p. 135), iKKaKuv*^ evSoKctv (Sturz p. 168, 
Iritz. liom. II. 370), ofxoid^uv,* dyaOovpyuv, dya6o)(7vv7]j Siaa-KopTri- 
leiv (Lob. p. 218), (TTprjvLdv (rpv^dv, Lob. p. 381), iyKparevopiai* 
(Lob. p. 442), oiKoSeo-TTOTT/s and otKoSeorTrorctv (Lob. p. 373), XtOoßoXeiv, 
TTposcfidyLov (oij/ov, Sturz p. 191), Xoyia, Kpdßßaro<s {(TKiixirovi, Lob. 
p. 63, Sturz p. 175), TreTroiOrjai? (Lob. p. 295), o-ttIXo^ (Kr]\i<;, Lob. 
p. 28), fxdfXfxr} (rrjOr), Lob. p. 133), pac^is (ßeXovr), Lob. p. 90), 
dypteXato9 (kotlvo?, Moeris p. 68), dyvoTrjs* dyiorr^?,* cVevSvTT/?, 
€/cTevtü9 and iKT€V€La (Lob. p. 311), aTrapdßaro^ (Lob. p. 313). 

Under the last two heads, (d) and (e), certain classes of words 
deserve special mention. Later Greek was particularly rich in 

(1) Substantives in fxa, as KardXvp-a, avraTroSofxa^ KaTopOoijxa, 
pdTTLo-fxa, yevvy/xa, tKTpiDjxa (Lob. p. 209), ßdTTTi€rp.a* cvroA/xa, tc- 
poavXrjfxa :* see Pasor, Gram. pp. 571-574. 

(2) Substantives compounded with aw, as o-v/>t/xa6 17x7)9, o-v/jltto- 
X[Trj<i (Lob. p. 471). 5 

(3) Adjectives in ti/09, as opOpivos (Sturz p. 186), TrpwiVd?, KaQyjinpi- 
vds, oa-rpdKLVos, Sep/xdrLVo^ (Lob. p. 51). 

(4) Verbs in ow, t^w, a^w, as di/aKatvdco, Swa/xdco, dcfiVTrvooi, SoXtdw, 
iiovSevoio* (rOevow, dp^pt^w,* Sety/xart^tu,* öcarpt^w, <^vAaKi^w,* t/xart^w, 

aKovTi^w, TTcAcKt^w (Lob. p. 341), alp€TL^<x) (Babr. 61, Boisson. Anecd. 
II. 31 8), a-Lvid^oi. 

^ Siebelis, Pr. de verb, compos, quce quaiuor partib. co72 stant {Bxidiss. 1832). 

'•^ Also abbjeviated forms of proper names, which no doubt were pre- 
viously us(;(l in the popular language, were admitted into the written ; as 
'AXe^aj, 2^«v/a (for 'iffT/icvia), &c. The derivatives of 3e;^£<r^a/ were but slightly 
altered, as ^uv'^opf^ivi, ^uohoxiv;, for -ra.viox.ivs, &c. (Lob. p. 307). 

' Many such words have been collected from the Fathers by Suicer, Sacrce 
Observalt. p. 311 sqq. (Tigur. 1665). 

* In the written language iyKuxtTv alone was used ; see Winer, Gal. p. 131, 
and Meyer on 2 C. iv. 1, ['Ekx. occurs six times in liec, but Lachm., Tisch., 
Kllic, "Westcott and Ilort read iyx. (ivx. ) in cvciry case. The Fathers use 
iyKctxtTv. See Ellic. and Lightf. on (}, vi. 9, Alf. on 2 C. iv. 1.] 

^ [See Ellicott on E. ii. 19. On xa^ui, mentioned below, see EUicott on G. iii. 6.] 


To tliesc may bo added tho two presents formed from perfects, 
(TTi)Ku) (sec above), yp-qyopd (Lob. p. 118). Compare also sucli ad- 
verbs as irdvTOTe (8ta7rai/TO?, iKiiaTOTC, Sturz p. 187), TratSLoSev {Ik 
7rai8tov, Lob. p. 93), KaOo)<; (Sturz p. 74), iravoLKL (iravoLKLa, 7ravoLKr](TLa, 
Lob. p. 515).^ 'E(Tx<iTU)s tx^Lv is a later i)brase for KaKo>?, Troi/r^^jtu? 
tX^Lv (Lob. p. 389), and KaXoiroLflv (sec above) was used for the older 
phrase KaXtos Trouly. 

That this list contains many words which were coined by the 
Greek-speaking Jews or the N. T. writers themselves — especially 
Paul, Luke, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews, comp. Origen, 
Oral. § 27 — according to the prevailing analoiry of the time, will not 
be denied: compare particularly opOpl^eiv (D'3"C'n), XLOoßoXiiv, alfjiareK- 
Xvo-La, aKXrjpoKapSia, cr/cAr;poTpa;^>;Ao9, ayaOoepyelv, 6puoTroO€LV, opuo- 
TOfX€LV, p.ocrxo'^oiuv, p,€yaX(i>avvr}, TaTTUvocfipocrvvrj, Trapaßarrjs, Trarpi- 
dpXiTi, ayci/caAoyryro?, v-ttottoSlov (Sturz p. 199), ^j^pvcroSa/crvA-ios. And 
yet we cannot consider this point decided by the fact that no trace of 
these words has been found in the extant works of the Greek authors 
of the first centuries after Christ. Some of these works have not 
been examined : - besides, many words of the kind might be already 
current in the ordinary spoken language. Those words, however, 
which denote Jewish institutions, or which designate Gentile 
worship, etc., as idolatrous, naturally originated amongst the Greek- 
speaking Jews themselves: e.g. (TKr]V07rr]yLa, etSwAoövTOV, ciSooA-oA-arpeta. 
Lastly, many words received among the Jews a more specific mean- 
ing connected with Jewish usages and modes of thought ; as ctti- 
arpicfiea-Oai and iTncrTpocjiy], used absolutely, be converted, conversion, 
77po^7]\vro<i, -nevT-qKoa-rrj Fentecost, KocrpiO'i (in a figurative sense), 
(fivXaKT-qpiov, i-myafxßpevuv of the leviratc marriage. On the pecu- 
liarly Christian words and forms, e.g. ßdTrTia-fxa, see p. 36. 


These are in great measure limited to certain inflexions of nouns 
and verbs, which either were entirely unknown at an earlier period, 
or were not used in certain words, or at all events were foreign to 
written Attic, — for the mixture of the previously distinct dialects is 
seen in the inflexions as well as in the vocabulary of later Greek. 
The use of the dual became rare. 

There are few peculiarities of syntax. Certain verbs are construed 
with cases diff*erent from those which they govern in classical Greek 

1 That this popular Greek should have adopted with slight alterations 
certain foreign words (appellatives) belonging to the other languages spoken 
in the different provinces, is very natural, but our present general inquiry is 
not further concerned with the fact. On the Egyptian words found in the LXX 
and elsewhere, see Sturz p. 84 sqq. Latin and Persian words have also been 
]>ointed out in the N. T. : comp. Olear. de stylo N. T. p. 366 sqq. ; Georgi, 
Hierocr. I. 247 sqq. and II. {de Latinismis N. T.) ; Dresig, de N. T. Gr. Lati- 
nismis merito et /also smpectis (Lips. 1726) ; Schleiermacher, Herrn, p. 62 sq. 

* Most words of this kind appear later in the Byzantine writers, who abound 
in double compounds and lengthened forms of words. They especially delighted 
to revive in this way words which had been, as it were, worn out by use. 


(§ 31. 1, 32. 4) ;i conjunctions which were formerly joined with the 
optative or conjunctive only are now found with the indicative ; the 
use of the optative perceptibly declines, especiallyin the oratio obliqua; 
the future participle after verbs oi going, sending, etc., gives place to 
the present participle or to the infinitive ; active verbs with kavTcv 
come into use instead of middle verbs, where no special emphasis is 
intended ; and there is a general tendency to use the more expressive 
forms of speech without their peculiar force, and at the same time to 
strive after additional emphasis even in grammatical forms, — comp. 
/u.€6^oT€/3os, tVtt lu the placc of the infinitive, &c. The later inflexions 
will be most ajipropriately noticed in § 4. 

We cannot doubt that the late popular dialect had special pecu- 
liarities in diff'erent provinces. Critics have accordingly professed 
to find Cilicisms in Paul's writings, see Hieron. ad Algasiam Qucest. 
10, Tom. IV. p. 204 (ed. Martianay) ; but the four examples which 
this Father adduces are not conclusive,^ and, as we know nothing of 
Cilician provincialisms from any other source,-'^ the inquiry should 
rather be abandoned than be founded on mere hypotheses. Comp. 
Stolberg, De Cilicismis a Paulo usur^patis, in his Tr. de Soloec. N. T. 
p. 91 sqq. 

Section III. 


The popular dialect of Greek was not spoken and written by 
the Jews without foreign admixture. The general charac- 
teristics of their mother-tongue — vividness and circumstantiality 
combined with great sameness of expression — w^ere transferred 
Irom it to their Greek style, which also contains particular 
phrases and constructions derived i'rom the same source. Both 
peculiarities, the general Hebraistic impress and the introduction 
of " Hebraisms," are more apparent in their direct translation 
from the Hebrew than in their original composition in Greek.* 

The Hebraisms (and Aramaisms) are more frequently lexical 
than grammatical. The former consist partly of words used in 
an extended signification, partly of whole phrases imitated from 
the Hebrew, and partly of words newly framed in accordance 

^ Coinp.are Boissonadc, Anecd. IIL 136, 154. 

^ Michaelis, Jntroducilou L 149 (Miirsli's Tninsl.). 

•^ Compare however Sturz p. 62, [who assi^nis a Cilician origin to snch 
forms as £X«/ia, i'^aya (see § 13. 1), and to the word <riaon, L(!V. xix. 27. The 
Cilicisms of wiiich Jerome speaks are xaTava/ix«v nvos, xaTußpußtvnv Ttvd, 
atvdpumvov xiyco, and the use of ^t^« in 1 C. iv. 3. See Schirlitz, (Jrandz. p. 26; 
Mullach, VuLij. p. 17 J. 

^ Herein lies an argument, hitherto little noticed, against regarding the N. T. 
text as a translation Irom the Aramaic, — a translation, too, for the most part 
unskilfully executed. 


with Hebrew analog}', to correspond with Hebrew words sinii- 
hii'ly formed. Thus arose a Jewish Greek, which was in part 
unintelligible to native Greeks/ and which they sometimes 
treated with contempt. 

All the nations wliicli after Alexander's death were subject to the 
Groeco-Macedonian rule, and gradually accustomed themselves to the 
Greek language of their conquerors even in the ordinary intercourse 
of life, — and especially the Syrians and Hebrews, — spoke Greek less 
purely than native Greeks, imparting to it more or less the impress 
of their mother-tongue : see Salmas. De ling. Hell. p. 121, and com- 
pare Joseph. Ant. 20. 9.^ As the Greek-speaking Jews are. usually 
denominated Hellenists, this oriental dialect of Greek, known by us 
only from the writings of Jews, is not unsuitably called Hellenistic ; 
see Buttm. I. 6.^ By this name therefore, — first introduced by Sca- 
liger {Animadv. in Eus. p. 134), not by Drusius {ad Act. vi. 6) — the 
language of the LXX and N. T. (with the Libri Pseudepigraphi and 
the apocryphal books of the N. T.) is specially designated. 

The Hebraisms of the N. T. (for it is to these, and not to the oriental 
tone which is manifest in the structure of sentences and the arrange- 

' Though L. de Dieu's opinion {Prcef. ad Grammat. Orient.), " facilius Euro- 
paeis foret Platonis Aristotelisque elegantiam imitari, (|uam Platoni Aristotelive 
N. T. nobis interpretari," is decidedly an exaggeration. The above-mentioned 
circumstances, however, serve to explain in general the liberty which learned 
Greek transcribers or possessors of MSS. often allowed themselves to make cor- 
rections for the sake of bringing the diction nearer to Grecian elegance : see 
Hug, Introd. I. § 24. XL [Tregelles, Home IV. p. 54.] 

2 It is well known that Greek subsequently became Latinised to a certain 
extent, when the Romans began to write in that language. The Latin colour- 
ing, however, is not very marked before the time of the Byzantine writers, 
even in translations of Latin authors, — such as that of Eutropius by Paeauius, 
of Cicero's Cato Maj. and Somn. Scip. by Theodorus (edited by Götz : Nürnb. 
1801), — partly because Greek and Latin are much more nearly allied in structure 
than Hebrew and Greek, and partly because these writers had studied Greek. 
[Specimens of Latinising are given by Mullach, p, 51 sq.] 

^ This designation is entirely appropriate, and should be resumed as a 
technical term, for ikkyivitrT-/<s in the N. T. (A. vi. 1) denotes a Greek-speaking 
Jew. (Examples, of 'ikXuvl^uv rather than of ikXnvttrnns, may be found in 
Wetstein II. 490, Lob. p. 379 sq.) The opinion of Salmasius, that in the N. T. 
a Hellenist means a proselyte to Jutlaism out of the Greek nation, is a hasty 
inference from A. vi. 5, and Eichstadt {ad Mori Acroas. Herrn. I. 227) should 
not have adojjted it. The controversy between D. Heinsius {Exercit. de tin;/. 
Hellenist. : Leyden, 1643) and Salmasius {Hellenistica, and Funus ling. Hell., 
and Ossile'jium ling. Hell. : Leyden, 1643) on the name dialectus Hellenistica, 
related even more to the word dialectus than to Hellenistica : for the former 
word Salmasius {de Hellenist, p. 250) wislied to substitute character or stylus 
idioticus. Compare also Tittm. Syn. I. 259 sq. Yet dialect {lixXiKro; ro-7r,x,r,) 
is not inadmissible as a name for the Greek spoken by the Hellenistic Jews, 
especially if the wide meaning of the verb lia.xiyi(r6xi {e.g. Strabo 8. 514) be 
taken into consideration. Other writings on this title {dial. Hellen.) may be 
seen in Walch, Biblioth. Theol. IV. 278 sq.. Fabric. Biblioth. Gr. IV. 893 sq. 
(ed. Harles). Thiersch and Rost have begun to call the language of the Greek 
Bible the "ecclesiastical dialect," but this name is too narrow for the Jewish 
Greek of which we are speaking : the word dialect, too, is not suitable. [See 
Mullach, p. 14 ; Roberts, Discussions on tlie Gospels, pp. 156-176.] 


menfc of words, that attention has usually been directed) have been 
frequently and copiously collected, especially by Vorst, Leusden, and 
Olearius • ^ but no one has executed the work with sufficient critical 
precision. 2 Almost all writers on the subject are more or less charge- 
able with the following faults :— - 

(a) Too little attention is paid to the Aramaic element in N. T. 
diction.^ It is well known that the language ordinarily spoken by 
the Jews of Palestine in the time of Jesus was not the ancient Hebrew, 
but the Syro-chaldaic ; and hence Jewish Greek would necessarily 
receive from this dialect many of the most common expressions of 
ordinary life.^ Olearius, however, of the older writers, has a special 
section de Chaldceo-Syriasmis N. T. (p. 345 sqq.) ; comp, also Georgi, 
Hierocr. 1. 187 sqq. More recently much relating to this subject has 
been collected by Boysen, Agrell, and Hartmann. ^ Some earlier 
writers had occasionally directed attention to Aramaisms : see 
Michaelis, Introd. I. 135 sqq. (Trans.), Fischer, ad Leusd. p. 140, 
Bertholdt, Einleit. Part I. p. 158. — Under this head come also the 
(few) Kabbinisms ^ — mostly school-terms, such as may have been 
current amongst Jewish doctors as early as the time of Jesus. For 
illustrating these very much material may still be extracted from 
Schoettgen's HorcB Hebraicm. 

(b) The difference between the styles of different authors was 
almost entirely lost sight of. To judge from the collections of these 
writers, every part of the N. T. would seem to be equally pervaded 

* Leusden, Philol. Hebr., from wliich the Dissertat. de dialectis N. T. sinrj. 
de ejus Hebr. was reprinted in a separate form by J. F. Fischer (Lips. 1754, 
1792). 0]eaiTms, J)e stylo N. 7^. p. 232 sqq. Compare also Hartmann, Linguist. 
Einl in das Stud, des A. T. p. 382 sqq. Anm. 

2 A complete work on this subject, executed with critical accuracy and 
on rational principles, is therefore greatly needed. Äleanwliile, our thanks are 
due for the commencement recently made by D. E. F. Bockel, De Hebraismis 
N. T. Spec. I. (Lips. 1840). 

3 Many of the peculiarities adduced by the Hebraists might be either 
Hebraisms or Aramaisms : e.g. eIj as indef. article, the fieciuent use of uvai witli 
the partic. in the place of a finite verb. It is better, however, to regard these 
and similar expressions as Aramaisms, since they occur much more frequently 
and regularly in Aramaic, and in Hebrew are almost confined to those later 
writings whose style approaches the Aramaic. The N. T. alone is directly 
referred to in what has just been said, for there are but few Aramaisms in the 
LXX ; comp. Clear, p. 308, Gesenius, Isaiah I. 63. 

* To such expressions the Aramaic element in N. T. Greek is substantially 
confined. The religious expressions were derived from the ancient Hebrew, the 
sacred language, either directly or (in the case of most of the Jews out of 
Palestine) through the medium of the LXX. To the former category belongs 

IP. y 
/ n^n ) '. comp. 
Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. p. izz LP- i-^'-^J- 

^ l>oysen, Krit. Erlüuterumjen des Grundtextes d. N. T. aus der sj/r. Ueber- 
setzuwj (Quedlinb. 17G1) : Agrell, Oratio de diet. iV. T. (Wexion. 1798), and 
OtiolaSyr. pp. 53-58 (Lund. 1810) ; ILartmann, I.e. p. 382 sqq. 
« See Olearius, I.e. p. 3G0 sqq. ; Georgi, I.e. p. 221 sqq. 

* To ßavariKov, in popular living Greek, is the ordinary term for the j)lague. 
E. M. 


by Hebraisms. Such uniformity is far from existing in fact ; and in 
this inquiry Matthew, Luke, Joim, Paul, James, and tlie author of 
the Ep. to the Hebrews, cannot possibly be considered together.^ 
Another question left unnoticed is the relation between the diction 
of the N. T. and that of the LXX. With all their similarity they 
have also many points of difference ; and, in general, the language 
of the N. T. is less Hebraistic than that of the LXX, which was a 
direct, and. in part, a literal translation from the Hebrew. 

(c) They included in their lists of Hebraisms much tliat was not 
foreign to Greek prose, or is the common property of many lan- 
guages ; and, in general, had no clear definition of " Hebraism " to 
start from. 2 In fact, this word was used in three senses, to denote — 

(1) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are peculiar to 
Hebrew or Aramaic, nothing corresponding to them being found in 
Greek prose ; as cnrXay^^vL^ecrOaL, ocfiuXrjfjiaTa d<^teVat, 7rpo?cü7roi/ \afx- 
ßdv€LV, OLKoSo/xeiv (in a figurative sense), TrXarvvuv rrju KapStav, 
Tropev€(r6aL oTrt'crw, ov , . . Tras (for ovSets), l^o^oXoyua-Qai tlvl and Iv 
TLVi, &C. 

(2) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are occasionally 
met with in Greek writers, but which were in the first instance sug- 
gested to the N. T. writers by their native language : as a-ircpjxa for 
proles (Schwarz, Comm. p. 1235), Hebr. ynr ; avdyK-rj distress (comp, 
Diod. Sic. 4. 43, Schwarz I.e. p. 81), Hebr. piVD np'^'^D 1^ niv- epwrav 

denotes both request and interrogate, comp, the Latin 
rogare (Babr. 97. 3, Apollon. Synt. p. 289) ; ds d-dvTrja-Lv (Diod. Sic. 
8. 59, Polyb. 5. 26. 8), comp. nxnpS ; Trepara T^9 y^<; (Thuc. 1. 69, 
Xen. Ages. 9. 4, Dio Chr. 62. 587), comp, px ''DDX ; x^tXos for littus 
(Her. 1. 191, Strabo, al.), comp, nab' ; oro/Aa of a sword (HQ), comp., 
besides the poets, Philostr. Her. 19. 4. So also the phrase ivSvaao-Oai 
Xpta-Tov — Dion. H. has TapKvvLov ivSva. — is formed on the model of 
pnv tJ^;i7, or the like. Comp, above, p. 17. 

(3) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are equally common 
in Greek and in Hebrew, so that we may doubt whether they were 
used by the Jews as part of the popular Greek which they adopted, 
or because the corresponding words, &c., in their native language 
were so familiar ; as (fivXda-a-eiv vojxov, al/xa ccedes, dv7]p with appella- 
tives (dvr]p <f>ov€v<;), Trals slave, /xeyaXwetv praise, SnoKetv strive after 
(a virtue).^ 

(4) Lastly, it must be owned that Hebraisms (Aramaisms) were 

1 The style even of the same writer is not always uniform. Thus Luke in his 
Gospel, where he was dependent on the Gospel paradosis, has more Hebraisms 
than in the Acts ; and the falling off in the diction after the preface to his 
Gospel was long ago pointed out. The hymns and discourses also are more 
Hebraistic than the narrative portions : comp. e.g. L. i. 13-20, 42-55, 68-79. 
The relation in which Luke stands to Matthew and Mark, as regards language 
and style, has not yet been clearly shown. 

2 See Tittmann, Syn. L p. 269 sqq. ; De Wette, A. L. Z. 1816, Xo. 39, p. 306. 
' Many of the grammatical phenomena adduced in Haab's grammar are of 

this kind. 


introduced into very many passages by the commentators themselves. 
Thus E. V. 26, iv prjfxaTL Iva, iti'« in*n-^y, see Koppe ; Mt. xxv. 23, 
^a/Dct convhium, after the Aram, nnn (see Fisch, ad Leusd. Dial. 
p. 52), or the Hebr. nnpb> Esth. ix. 17, al. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. 
T. I. 528) ; Mt. vi. 1, htKaioa-vvq alms, after the Chald. npn^ ; Mt. 

XXL 13, Xr}(TTai traders (Fisch. Ix. p. 48). Connected with this was 
considerable misuse of the LXX ; e.g. L. xi. 22, o-KvXa supellex, 
comp. Esth. iii. 13 ; Acts ii. 24, Xv€<s vincula, comp. Ps. xvii. 6.^ 
Uepav has even been rendered on this side of, like "iny (?) ! Compare 
further Fritz. Bom. I. 367.2 

From what has been said it will be clear that the Hebraisms of the 
N. T. may be divided into two classes — perfect and imperfect. By 
perfect Hebraisms we understand those uses of words, those phrases 
and constructions, which belong exclusively to the Hebrew (Aramaic) 
language, and which therefore Hellenistic Greek (i.e., the language of 
the N. T.) has directly received from this source.^ Imperfect He- 
braisms are those uses of words, those phrases and constructions, 
which are also found in Greek prose, but which we may with very 
great probability suppose the N. T. writers to have immediately 
derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic — partly because these writers 
were most familiar with their mother-tongue, and partly because the 
phraseology in question was of more frequent occurrence in Hebrew 
than in Greek. This distinction has been noticed by De Wette, who 
says (I.e. p. 319) : " Whether a phrase is absolutely un-Greek, or 
whether there exists in Greek a point of connexion to which the 
phrase can attach itself, makes an essential difference." 

We must how^ever carry the investigation farther back, and consider 
especially the genesis of the so-called Hebraisms. The language of 
the LXX^ cannot be made the basis of this inquiry : as a translation, 
it affords no certain evidence respecting the Greek which was freely 
spoken and written by Jews, and which had been acquired by them 
from oral intercourse. Nor can we in the first instance deal with 
the doctrinal partsof theN. T., because the religious phraseology of the 
Jews in Greek naturally attached itself very closely to the Hebrew, 
and found a model already existing in the LXX. If we wish to ascer- 

^ [Since 775^ {spoils) is translated by v9reip;^ovra, in Esth. iii. 13, it was said that 

T T 

tTKuXa, L. xi. 22, is used for goods " per HeLraismum ; " and similarly that u'^tvi; 
ÖCCV., A. ii. 24, means cords of death, because in Ps. xviii. (xvii.) 5 rilD ''blH 

(which has this meaning) is ren(h;red u^iTva ^«v. in the LXX.] 

'^ In tlie title of Kaiser's Diss, de I'ukj. Aram, usu, &e. (Norinib. 1831), the 
word ahusu would be more in accordance witii truth than usu. 

^ Such Hebraisms are thus d(;fined l)y Hl(!ssig in the work cited above [j). 16, 
note ^] : " llebraismus est solius llebnei sennonis ])ropria lotiiiendi ratio, eujus- 
modi in Gnecam vel aliam lingiiam sinebarbarisniisuspicionetransferre non licet." 
* The most imi)ortant work that has yet appeared on the linfjuistic ele- 
ment of tli(! liXX is II. W. Jos. Thiersch, De Pentaieiichi versione Alex, lihri 3 
(Erlang, 1840), from whicli, in the later editions of this «grammar, many welcome 
illustrations have been rec{;ivrd. Hut a complete examination of the language 
of the LXX is still very much needed. 


tain as exactly as possible the influence which the mother-tongue 
exerted on the Greek spoken by Jews, we must examine especially 
the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels, and the Acts of the 
Ai)ostles. In the first place, it is clear that it was the general character 
of Hebrew or Aramaic composition tliat was most naturally and 
unconsciously impressed — by original writers almost as much as by 
translators — on their Greek style. No one escapes without difficulty 
from this general influence, which is, as it were, born with him ; only 
reflexion and practice can set him free from it. This general character 
consists : — 

(1) In vividness — hence the use of a preposition instead of the 
simple case, the latter construction being rather the result of abstrac- 
tion — and consequently circumstantiality of expression : e.g. (ficvyciv 
ojro TrposcüTTOv Ttvos, iypd(f)r) Sta ^ct/aos Ttvo9, Travre? diro /xiKpov cuj? 
/AcyoAov, KOL eo-rat . . . koL ckx^u), and the like ; the accumulation of 
personal and demonstrative pronouns, especially after the relative, 
the narrative formula kol iyivero, &c. 

(2) In the simplicity and indeed monotony with which the Hebrew 
constructs sentences and joins sentence to sentence, preferring 
co-ordination to subordination : hence the very limited use of con- 
junctions (in which classical Greek is so rich), the uniformity in the 
use of the tenses, the want of the periodic compactness which results 
from the fusion of several sentences into one principal sentence, and 
along with this the sparing use of participial constructions, so nume- 
rous and diversified in classical Greek. In historical narrative there 
is this marked peculiarity, that words spoken by another are almost 
always quoted in the direct form, as uttered by him ; whereas it is the 
indirect introduction of the speaker that gives so distinctive a colour- 
ing to the narrative style of classical authors, and that leads to the 
frequent and varied use of the optative, a mood which is almost un- 
known in Hellenistic Greek. 

From this general Hebrew influence Jewish Greek necessarily 
received a strongly marked character. Many special peculiarities, 
however, were derived from the same source, and it is to these that 
the name of Hebraisms is usually given. 

To begin with the simplest kind : — 

(a) The Greek word which expressed the primary meaning of a 
Hebrew word often received in addition its secondary meanings 
also ; compare ipiordv, b^^^ interrogate and request. Hence it would 

not be strange if the Jews had used StKaLoa-vvr} in the sense of alms, 
like nplV. More certain examples are, ofjitiX-qixa 2}ßccatum, from 
the Aram, lin ; vviJL<:f>rj [bride, also) daughter-in-latv, Mt. x. 35, as 
n^3 has both these meanings (Gen. xxxviii. 11, LXX); els ioT primus 

in certain cases, like ins • iiofxoXoyeLcrOaL tlvl to praise (giving thanks), 
like h TnSn (Ps. cv. 47, cxxi. 4, al., LXX) ; ivXoyfiv bless, i.e. make 
happy, like "ijia • ktiVis that which is created, creature, compare the 
Chaldee nns • 8o^a in the sense of tightness, splendour, like 1133 : 
8vva/x€is miracles, ni"i^3a. The transference of a figurative sense is 
most frequent : as iroT-qpiov sors,portio, Mt. xx. 22 (Di3) ; a-KoySaXov 



stumhling Mod; in a moral sense piC^DÖ) ; yXuxrcra for nation (|V^^) ; 

XeiA-o? for language ('nab') ; ivw-n-Lov tov O^ov (nin) '•pQP) according to God's 

judgment; KapUa evOeia (H^:;'''); Tre/jiTrareti/ walk, of a course of life; 

686s (^"I'n), comp. Schaefer, Ind. ad j^sop. p. 148 ; dvaöe/xa, not 

merely what is consecrated to God, but (like the Hebrew D"in) what is 

devoted to destruction, Eom. ix. 3, Dt. vii. 26, Jos. vi. 17, al. ; 
\v€.iv, Mt. xvi. 19, declare lawful, from the Kabbinical T^nn. 

(h) Certain very common vernacular phrases are literally translated 
into Greek : as Trposoi-n-ov Xaixßdv^iv from D''J2 5<b^> t,y]Tuv if/vx^v from 

L"DJ C'pB ; TTOietv eXeos (xa/oti') />ieTa Ttvo? from Dy lÜH T]^]} ' avotyeLV rov<i 

6(^0aXfxov'i or TO (TTOfxa tlv6<5 (ripB') 5 yeuecr^at Oavdrov, iOT'D D^ü (Talm.); 

aprov <f)aye2v COßUare, DH^ PDS- al^aa eK^eeiv, D1 '!]DtJ' Z;i/// avcarrj/xL 

cnrepixa tlvl from P yiT D''pn : vl6<; Oavdrov from mD"p (01 viol tov 

vv/x(f)(jjvo<5) ; Ka/37ros oacfivos from D'^^vH ''"IQ • KapTro? KoiAt'a? from |Ü3 ''1Ö* 

c^epx^cröat CK T^9 o(T(^ uos TtFo? from 'd ''VPnO SV"* • e/c KOtXta?p.7^rposfrom 

i?^^^ l^^BD- ^ 6(j>€LX7)fLa d<^teVat from ^^Di^ p^C* (Talm.) ; also a-T-qptt^^Lv 

TrposwTTOi/ avTOV from VJ3 D'^t^H • Tracra crap^ from 11^21 v3 

T T • •• J ' T T T ' 

(c) Reflexion and contrivance are more apparent in the formation 
of Greek derivatives, that vernacular words which belong to the same 
root may be similarly expressed in Greek : as oAoKavrw/xa (from 

oXoKavTOvv, Lob. p. 524) for npy • aTrXayxy^^^o-Oat from or7rXdy)(ya, as 

Dni is connected with n"'Dm • o-KavSaXiteLv, a-KavSaXttecrOai, like btiba 

p'^^^^ ; iyKaLVL^eiv from lyKaivia, as "Tj^n is connected with n!3Jn • 

avaOep.aTL^€Lv like D''")nn ; opOpL^ecv like D^S^H • and perhaps ivoiri^e- 

a-Oat like pTJ^n^ comp. Fisch, ad Leus. Dici/. p. 27. This is carried 

still farther in Trpo^wTroXTyTrretv, for which the Hebrew itself has no 
single corresponding word. 

All this easily accounts for the Hebrew- Aramaic colouring which is 
so distinctly apparent in the style of the N. T. writers, who were not 
(like Philo and Josephus^) acquainted with Greek literature, and who 
did not strive after a correct Greek style. The whole cast of their 
composition, and in particular the want of connexion (especially in 
narrative), could not but offend a cultivated Greek ear; and many 
expressions — such as acfulvat ocfi^LX-qfxara,^ TrpostoTToi/ XafjißdviLv, XoyC- 

^ A similar Gncci.sin in Latin is " a teucris unguiculis " {Cic. Fam. 1. 6. 3), 
which the Romans certainly understood, as Kap-^o; p^uXio^v, for instance, would 
undoubtedly be understood by the Greeks, though it might seem a somewhat 
strange exprcission ; comj). xaprros (ppsväv, Find. N'ern. 10. 22. Still less difh- 
culty would be occasioned by xapTot koiXIxs, since /rait was used absolutely 
for offHprirKj by the Greeks (Aristot. l*()l'd. 7. 16, Eurip. Bacch. 1305) and 
others, where the meaning was made clear l)y the context : comp. Ihilmk. ad 
Hom. in Cerer. 23. [hi Eurip. Bacch. 1305 (1307) the word is 'ipvAi : this 
word and ^«Xof are not unfret^uently used in this sense. On xapTÖs, see Hor- 
maiin and Paley on Eurip. /on 475 {Kap-TorprKpoi).] 

^ Tiiough even Josephiis, when narrating O. T. history after the LXX, is 
not altogether free from Jlebraisms : see Scharfcnbcüg, De Josej^hi et LXX. 
consensu, in Pott, Syllofje vii. p. 306 sq([. 

^ In the sense of remitting sins, i.e. so far as otpuXi^fcara is concerned ; 


^cfrOui ei9 SiKaLoaiTT)}', i^c. — would coiivey to a native Greek eitlier an 
eiToiieous meaning or no meaning at all.^ At the same time, it 
is easy to explain the fact that such Hebraistic expressions are 
less numerous in the free com^josition of tlie N. T. tlian in the trans- 
lation of the 0. T.,and that, in tlie N. T. itself, those writers whose 
education was Hellenistic — Paul, Luke (especially in the second part 
of the Acts), John, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews ^ — use 
fewer Hebraisms than those who properly belonged to Palestine 
(Matthew, Peter).' It is also obvious that the Hebraisms which 
we find in the language of the Apostles were not all unconsciously 
adopted.^ The religious expressions — and these constitute by far the 
greatest portion of the N. T. Hebraisms — were necessarily retained, 
because these were, so to speak, completely imbued with the religious 
ideas themselves, and because it was designed that Christianity 
should in the first instance link itself to Judaism.^ Indeed there 
were no terms in the Greek language, as it then existed, by which the 
deep religious phenomena which apostolic Christianity made known 
could be expressed.'' But when it is maintained' that the X. T. 
writers always thought in Hebrew or Aramaic what they afterwards 
\vrote in Greek, this is an exao;2;eration. Such a habit belonsjs to 
beginners only. We ourselves, when we have had some practice in 
writing Latin, gradually (though never entirely) free ourselves from 
the habit of first thinking in our ow^n language. Persons who, though 
not scientifically trained in Greek, yet constantly heard Greek spoken 
and very often — indeed regularly — spoke it themselves, could not but 
acquire in a short time a stock of words and phrases and a power of 
handling the language wdiich would enable them, when writing, to 
command Greek expressions at once, without first thinking of verna- 

for aipAveti remit, even in reference to offences, occurs Her. 6. 30, in the phrase 
aip/sva/ (tlriocv, and o^uXrifjt.ot.'ra. a(pnven debita remittere (to remit what is due) 
is quite a common expression. In later Greek we find d^nvxi Tivi rnv oTiiKlocv, 
Plutarch, Pomp. 34, see Coraes and Schaef. in loc. A native Greek would also 
understand i-jp't^Knv x,'^piv, though it would sound strange to him in consequence 
of the use of the active for the middle i'jpi(rKi(T$ai. 

1 Comp. Gatak. De stylo N. T. cap. 5. 

2 Comp. Tholuck, Commentar, cap. 1. § 2. p. 25 sqq. 

3 The Grecian training of particular writers shows itself especially in the 
appropriate use of verba composlta and decomposUa. 

* Van den Honert, Si/nt. p. 103. 

^ Comp. Beza ad Act. x. 46. Rambach is not altogether wrono; in saying 
(fnst. Herrn. 1. 2. 2), "Lingua N. T. passim ad Ebraei sermoiiis indolem con- 
formata est, ut hoc modo concentus scripture utriusque Test, non in rebus solum 
sed ipsis etiam in verbis clarius observaretur : " comp. Pfatt", I\^ott. ad Alatth. 
p. 34 ; Clear, p. 341 sqq. ; Tittm. Syn. I. p. 201 sq. — Compare further J. W. Schro- 
der, De causis quare dictio pure Grceca in N. T. plerumque prcRterniissa sit 
(Marb. 1768); also Van Hengel, Comm. in Ep. ad Philipp, p. 19. 

^ Some good remarks on this point are to be found in Hvalstroem, Spec. 
de usu Grcecitatis Alex, in N. T. p. 6 sq. (Upsal. 1794). Van den Honert even 
went so far as to assert, "Vel ipse Demosthenes, si eandem rem, quam nobis 
tradiderunt apostoli, debita perspicuitate et efficacia perscribere voluisset, 
Hebraismorum usum evitare non potuisset. " 

7 By Eichhorn and Bretschneider {Proef. ad Lex. N. T. II. 12, ed. 2) ; Imt 
the latter has retracted this opinion, at any rate so far as regards Paul {Grundl. 
des ev. Pietism, p. 179). 


Ciliar words and phrases to be afterwards translated into Greek. ^ 
The parallel drawn between the N. T. writers and our beginners in 
Latin composition, or the (uneducated) German-speaking Jews, is 
both unworthy and incorrect : comp. Schleierra. Herrn, pp. 54, 59, 
257. It is also forgotten that the Apostles found a Jewish Greek 
idiom already in existence, and that therefore they did not them- 
selves construct most of their expressions by first thinking them out 
in Hebrew. 

Many Greek words are used by the N. T. writers in a special 
relation to the Christian system of religion (and even in direct 
contrast to Judaism), as religious technical terms. These appear to 
constitute a third element of the N. T. diction — the peculiarly 
Christian.'^ Compare especially the words «pya {ipydt,ccrOai, Rom. iv. 

4), TTLO-TL^S, TTIO-TCVUV €tS XpiCTToV, Or TTLCTTeveLV abSolutcly, O/XoAoyltt, 

SiKaLOcrvvr] and ScKatovcrOai, eKAeyecroat, ol kXtjtol, ol IkX^ktol, ol ayioi 
(for Christians), ol Trtcrrot and ol aTrtcrrot, oIkoSoixt^ and olKoSofxuv m 
a figurative sense, ctTroo-roAo?, evayyeXtlecrOaL and KrjpvTTCLV used 
absolutely of Christian preaching, the appropriation of the form 
ßaTrTKTjxa to baptism, perhaps kXov {tov) aprov for the holy repasts (the 
Agape with the Lord's supper), 6 Koo-fxo'?, rj o-dpi, 6 crapKiKos in the 
familiar theological sense, and others. Most of these expressions and 
phrases, however, are found in the O. T. and in Eabbinical writings;^ 
hence it will always be hard to prove anything to be absolutely 
peculiar to the Apostles, — brought into use by them. This apostolic 
element, therefore, mainly consists in the meaning and the applica- 
tion given to words and phrases, and the subject scarcely lies within 
the limits of philological inquiry : compare, however, Schleierm. 
Herrn, pp. 56, 67 sq., 138 sq. In the region of history, Trao-xeiv suffer 
and TrapaSiSocrOaL be delivered up (used absolutely) became established 
as technical expressions for the closing scenes of the life of Jesus on 
earth. 4 

Grammatical Hebraisms will be discussed in the next section. 

1 How easily do even we, who never hear Latin spoken by native Romans, 
attain the faculty of at once conceiving in Latin " dixit verum esse," or "quam 
virtutem demonstravit aliis praistare," and the like, without first mentally con- 
struing dixit quod verum sit, or de qua virtute dem., quod ea etc. Thinking 
in conformity with the genius of the mother-tongue shows itself particularly in 
phrases and figures which have become habitual, and which are unconsciously 
introduced into the foreign language. It was so with the Apostles, who 
regularly use, along with many IIel)raistic expressions, numerous Greek idioms 
which are entirely foreign to the genius of Hel)rew. 

2 See Ohjarius, De stylo N. T. p. 380 sqq. (ed. Schwarz), Eckard, Technica 
Sacra (Quedlinb. 1716). 

3 To attenq)t to explain such expressions of the apostolical terminology by 
quotations from Greek authors (comp. Krebs, Observ. Proif. p. 4) is highly 
absurd. 15ut, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish between the 
language of the Apostles, which stiU moved rather in the sj>here of 0. T. expres- 
sions, and the terminology of the Greek Church, which continually became more 
and more special in its mcianing. 

* [On the Christian el(;m('nt see Westcott in Smith's Diet, of Bible, ii. 
p. 533; Faiibairn, Jlerm.en. Manual, pp. 39-45; Sehirlitz, Oru7idziir/e, pp. 36-42; 
Webster, Syntax, p. 6 scj. ; also Cremer, Bibliach-theolog. Wörterbuch der 


Section IV. 


In examining the grammatical characteristics of the N". T. 
diction, the two elements of N. T. Greek must be carefully dis- 
tinguished. In grammar, as in vocabulary, the peculiarities of 
the later common Greek are the basis ; these however consist 
rather in certain forms of inflexion than in syntactical construc- 
tions. Mingled with these we find, but in very small proportion, 
Hebraistic expressions and constructions in connexion with all 
the parts of speech ; the main peculiarity being a predilection 
for prepositions, where the Greeks would have used cases alone. 
On the whole, K T. Greek obeys the ordinary laws of Greek 
grammar. Many peculiarly Greek idioms are familiarly used 
by the K T. writers (e.g. the attraction of the relative and of 
prepositions), and several distinctions which are entirely alien to 
Hebrew — as that bet^v^een the negatives ov and firi, etc. — are 
strictly observed, though by mere instinct. 

The grammatical structure of a language is much less affected by 
time than the use and meaning of its words. This may be verified 
in the case of almost every language whose development we can 
trace historically ; compare, for instance, the German of Luther's 
translation with that spoken at the present day.^ Greek is no excep- 
tion to this rule : the later common language is distinguished by few 
grammatical peculiarities, and these belong almost entirely to the 
accidence. We find in it especially a number of inflexions of nouns 
and verbs, which either did not exist at all in the earlier language, 
beiugformed later by shorteningorlengthening the original inflexions, 
or which formerly belonged to particular dialects. The following are 
examples of the latter class : — 

(a) Attic inflexions : nOiacn, rjßovXr'jOrjv, ^u-cXAe, ßovXet {ßovXy), 


(b) Doric : y XLfx6<; (for 6 X.), ^roi {iO-Tio), dc^eWrat (d<^etVTat). 

(c) ^olic: the 1 aor. opt. in eta,— which however was early 
admitted into Attic. 

(d) Ionic : yyjpci, cnrcLprf^;, ctTra (1 aor.). 

As forms entirely unknown in earlier Greek must be mentioned 
— such a dative as vol, the imperative kolOov, perfects like eyvwKav 

neutest Gräcität (2d ed. 1872,— translated by Urwick, 1878). Lünemann refers 
to Zezschwitz, Profangräcität u. biblisch. Sprachgeist: eine Vorl. üb. d. bibl. 
Umbildung hellen. Begrijf'e, bes. der psychol. (Leipz. 1859).] 

1 [On the relation of the English of our Auth. Ver. to that now spoken, see 
Jlax Müller, Lectures on Language, p. 35 sq. (1st series) ; Marsh, Lectures on 
the Eng. Lang. p. 443 sqq. (ed. Smith).] 


(for eyvoljKao-t), second aorists and imperfects like KarcXiVoorav, iSo- 
Xiova-av, second aorists like elSafxeu, ecfivyav, the future conjunctives 
(§ xiii. 1. e), the imperfect ^jxeOa. To this head specially belong 
many tense-forms which are regular in themselves, but for which 
the older language used others ; as rjfidpTrjaa for -^/xaprov, av^w for 
avidvo), rjia from rJKO), (fydyofxat for eSo/xat : indeed the new tense- and 
mood-forms received by verbs from which earlier Greek, for the 
sake of euphony, used but few forms, constitute a special feature of 
the later language. It should be added that several nouns received 
a new gender, as rj ßdros (for 6 ß.), and some in consequence a 
twofold declension, e.g. ttAovtos, I'Aeos : see § 9. Eem, 2. 

The peculiarities of syntax in later Greek are less numerous, and 
consist mainly in a negligent use of the moods with particles. The 
following examples may be quoted from the N. T. : orav with a past 
tense of the indicative, el with the conjunctive, IVa with the present 
indicative, the construction of such verbs as yevea-Oat, KaraStKa^etT/, 
with an accusative, of irpo^Kwetv and TrposcfiOiveLv with a dative of 
the person (Lob. p. 463, Matth. 402. c), the weakening of iVa in 
such phrases as öeAw tVa, a^tos ti/a, etc., the extension of the genitive 
of the infinitive (rov ttoluv) beyond its original and natural limits, 
the use of the conjunctive for the optative in narration after past 
tenses, and the consequent infrequency of the optative mood, which 
has entirely disappeared in modern Greek. MeAAeiv, OeXeiv, etc., 
are more frequently followed by the aorist infinitive (Lob. p. 747). 
Neglect of declension is only beginning to show itself; thus we find 
fiera rov h and the like (but as the result of design), see § 10. Rem. 
Later still we find particular instances of entire misconception of 
the meaning of cases and tenses : thus crvv takes the genitive in 
Niceph. Tact. (Hase ad Leon. Diac. p. 38), airo the accusative in Leo 
Gram. p. 232, and then in modern Greek; the aorist and present 
particij^les are interchanged in Leo Diac. and others. The dual (of 
nouns) is gradually superseded by the plural. 

The grammatical character of the N. T. language has a very slight 
Hebraic colouring. It is true that in grammatical structure Hebrew 
(Aramaic) differs essentially from Greek ; but this would rather tend 
to prevent the Greek-speaking Jews from intermingling with their 
Greek the constructions of their native language : a German would be 
in much greater danger of introducing German constructions into 
Latin or French. Besides, it is always easier to master the gram- 
matical laws of a foreign language than to obtain a perfect command 
of its vocabulary and to acquire the general national complexion 
of the foreign idiom : comp. Schleierm. Herrn, p. 73. The rules of 
syntax are but few in comparison with th(^ multitude of words and 
phrases ; these rules too — especially those fundam(!ntal laws on the 
observance of which depends correctness of style, not elegance 
merely — are much more frequently brought before the mind, parti- 
cularly in speaking. Hence it was not difficult for the Jews to 
acquire such a knowledge of the grammatical framework of the Greek 
of their time (in which, indeed, some of the niceties of Attic Greek 


"wore unknown) as was quito sufficient for their simple style of 
composition. Even the LXX in most cases correctly represent a 
Hebrew construction by its counterpart in Greek.^ Only certain 
expressions of frequent occurrence are either (when the laws of Greek 
syntax do not forbid) rendered literally, e.g. the expression of a wish 
by means of a question, 2 S. xv. 4 rt? fxe Karao-rT^Vct KpLTrjv ; xxiii. 15, 
Num. xi. 29, Dt. v. 26, xxviii. 67, Cant. viii. 1 ;2 — or translated, 
if possible, in a way which is at least in harmony with Greek 
analogy, as 6avaTio airoOavCia-Oe. Gen. iii. 4 (j^inpn ni?D)^ Dt. xx. 17, 
1 S. xiv. 39, Is. xxx. 19 ; — or even translated by a construction in 
actual use in Greek (see however § 45), as Jud. xv. 2 /xicrtui/ ifxia-rj- 
o-as, for nspb Nbb*, Gen. xliii. 2, Ex. xxii. 17, xxiii. 26, 1 S. ii. 25, 
al. ; compare also the infinitive with tov.^ Hebrew constructions 
which are altogether opposed to the genius of the Greek language 
are, as a rule, not retained in the LXX. Thus the feminine for the 
neuter is found in but few passages, where the translators have not 
sufficiently examined the original, or have anxiously sought for a 
literal rendering (e.g. Ps. cxviii. 50, cxvii. 23) ;4 and it is not pro- 
bable that they consciously used the feminine to represent the 
neuter. In other passages it is clear that they understood the 
Hebrew feminine to relate to some feminine noun or pronoun indi- 
cated in the context, as in Jud. xix. 30 : in Neh. xiii. 14, however, 
iv ravTY) is probably equivalent to the classical Tavrrj, in this respect, 
hoc in genere (Xen. Cyr. 8. 8. 5), or therefore, — comp, ravrr] on 
propterea quod, Xen. An. 2. 6. 7 : see also 1 S. xi. 2. The combina- 
tion of the Hebrew verb with prepositions is the construction most 
frequently imitated : as cfielSea-Oai l-rri tlvl Dt. vii. 16, or Ittl nva Ez. 
vii. 4 [.'^//c'a^.], olKoSo/xelv ev tlvl Neh. iv. 10 (2 H^B)^ eTrepwrai/ ey Kvpiio 

(nj.T'S hi<f) 1 S. X. 22, €vSoK€2v ev TLVL (2 |*2n, Fritz. Eom. II. 371). 
These imitations certainly sound harsh in Greek, but in each case some 
possible point of contact might be found in a language so flexible.^ 

^ Various Greek idioms had become quite habitual to them, such as the 
use of the article with attributive words and phrases after a substantive (o xvpio; 
\v ovpavu, and the like), the attraction of the relative, etc. : the negatives also 
are almost always correctly distinguished. The better translators furnisli 
examples of the more extended use of the Greek cases, as Gen. xxvi. 10, f/.ixpod 
ixoifi'^Sn was within a little of kc. 

^ Comp. Rom. vii. 24, and Fritz, in loc, who adduces similar examples 
from Greek poets. The formula with tZs (civ) and the optat. or conj. is dis- 
cussed by Schaefer, ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 523, and Melet. p. 100. 

^ Hemsterhuis says (Lucian, Dial. Mar. 4. 3): " saepenuraero contingit, ut 
locutio quffidam native Gr»ca a LXX interpretibus et N. T. scriptoribus mutata 
paululuni potestate ad Hebraeam apte expriraendam adhibeatur. " 

* The translator of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most careless ; 
that of Nehemiah is little better. — Aquila, who translated syllable for syllable 
(and e.g. absurdly rendered ni<, the sign of the accusative, by <ruv), cannot at all 

be taken into consideration in any inquiry into the grammatical character of 
Hellenistic Greek. He violates the rules of grammar without hesitation for the 
sake of a literal rendering ; as Gen. i. 5 iKaXiffiv o 6ios tu ipur) hf^ipit. And 
yet he always uses the article correctly, and even employs the attraction of the 
relative, — so deeply were both rooted in the Greek language. 
^ As in German, "bauen an etwas," "fragen hei," etc. 


But even if the LXX presented more instances of servile imitation 
of Hebrew constructions, this would not come into consideration in 
our inquiry respecting the N. T. As we have already said, the style 
of these translators, who usually followed the words of the original 
with studious exactness, and in some cases did not even understand 
their meaning, does not furnish the type of that style which Jews 
would use in conversation or free composition. In point oi grammar, 
so far as the particular rules of the language are concerned, the 
N. T. is altogether written in Greek ; and the few real grammatical 
Hebraisms which it contains become hardly discernible. Amongst 
these we may with more or less certainty ^ include, in general, the 
use of prepositions in phrases in which a classical writer would have 
been content with the simple case, as aTroKpvTTTuv n airo tlvo?, 
icrOteiv airo twv xj/f^toiv^ aOwos oltto tov at/xaros, koivwvos cV tlvl^ 

apeOTKCLV and TrpO'^KVV^LV ivWTTiOV TtV09, €vSoK€LV aud OeXiLV cV TLVL. 

Many examples of this kind, however, belong to the simplicity of the 
ancient style, and hence are also found in classic writers, especially 
the poets ; they are therefore not really discordant with the genius of 
the Greek language (e.g. Trav^iv airo rtvos). More special and certain 
examples of grammatical Hebraism are the following : — 

{a) The verbal translation of Hebrew constructions which are 
opposed to the spirit of the Greek language ; as 6/xoA.oyetv h tlvl, 
ßki-rreiv airo sibi cavere a, Trposeöero ireixiJ/aL, the formula d SoO-qcreTat 
to express a negative oath. 

(b) The repetition of a word for the purpose of indicating distri- 
bution, as 8vo Suo, bini, instead of dva 8vo. 

(c) The imitation of the Hebrew infinitive absolute (see above). 

(d) The use of the genitive of a noun expressing quality in the 
place of an adjective : — and probably also the remarkably frequent 
use of the infinitive with prepositions (and a subject in the accusa- 
tive) in narration. 

The constructions included under (a) and (b) may be considered 
pure Hebraisms. 

When, however, we consider that by far the largest number of 
constructions in the N. T. are pure Greek, and that the N. T. writers 
have even appropriated peculiarities of Greek syntax ^ which are 
altogether alien to the genius of their native language — as the dis- 
tinction of the difi'erent past tenses, the construction of verbs with dv, 
the attraction of the relative, such constructions as olKovofxiav TrcTrt- 
oTcv/xai, the use of a singular verb with neuter plurals, etc. — we 

' As imaginary Hebraisms may be mentioned — the supposed plur. excel- 
hnticß, the 2 i''>^»<'nti(je, the combinations which have been wrongly taken as 
periphrases for the superlative (e.g. <r«xcr/y| tov hoZ), the use of the feminine 
for the neuter, and the pretended hypallage t« prif^ccra. rrn t^urn TauT*i; for tolvto. 
Tk 'f^fj,, T. la>ni. [See § 27. 3, § 29. Horn., § 36. 2 and 3, § 34. 3. lieni. 1, § 34. 

^ The more minute niceties of written Attic, it is true, are not found in 
the N. T., partly because they were unknown in the popular spoken language, 
which the N. T, writers always heard, ]);iitly b(!c,;iuHe tliere was no place for 
these niceties in the simple style in which the N. T. is written. 


shall not be inclined to join in the outcry respecting the innumerable 
ii^ranimatical Hebraisms of the N. T. We may naturally expect to 
iind the diction of the N. T. much less Hebraistic grammatically than 
that of the LXX and the Palestinian Apocrypha. That this really is 
the case will clearly appear, if we mark in the LXX the constructions 
which have just been mentioned as Hebraistic, remembering at the 
same time that many Hebrew idioms retained in the LXX do not 
occur at all in the N. T., and others — as the expression of a wish by 
a question — only in isolated instances, in impassioned language. 
Such a periphrasis for the future as «o-o/mat StSomt, Tob. v. 14, is 
nowhere found in the N. T., nor is a substantive ever doubled to 
indicate each, every, as in Num. ix. 10, 2 K. xvii. 29, 1 Chr. ix. 27.^ 

Of the peculiarities of particular N. T. writers very few are purely 
grammatical ; the Apocalypse alone requires special (though not 
exceptional) notice in a N. T. Grammar. 

It is evident that in the whole investigation of the grammatical 
character of the N. T. language differences of reading must be care- 
fully considered. Conversely, a thorough knowledge of the various 
lexical peculiarities of individual writers is an indispensable requisite 
for successful textual criticism. ^ 

^ Yet in the better translated portions of the 0. T. and in the Palestinian 
Apocrypha we sometimes find Greek constructions where a N. T. writer would 
use a Hebraism : thus in 3 (1) Esdr. vi. 10, Tob. iii. 8, the genitive is used with 
strict Grecian propriety. See further Thiersch, De Pent. Alex. p. 95 sq. 

2 [On the general character of N. T. Greek, see EUicott, Aids to Faith, 
p. 457 sqq. ; Westcott in Smith's Diet, of Bible, II. p. 531 sqq., and Introd. to 
Gospels, pp. 38-40 ; J. Donaldson in Kitto's Cyclopcedia, II. p. 170 sq. (ed. 3) 
Scrivener, Criticism of N. T. c. viii. ; Green, Gram. c. i. ; Davidson, Bihl. Crit 
p. 447 sqq. ; Webster, Synt. c. 1 ; Tregelles in Home's Introd. IV. pp. 8-23 
Fairbairn, Herrn. Man. pp. 12-45; Bleek, Introd. to N. T. I. pp. 58-83 (Transl.) 
To the German references may be added, A. Buttmann, Gr. p. xi, 1 sq. 
Schirlitz, Grundz. Part I. The differences of opinion chiefly relate to the rela- 
tive importance of the various elements which enter into the composition of 
N. T. Greek. Amongst the questions raised are the following : how much 
stress should be laid on the dii-ect influence of the LXX (comp. Westcott in 
Diet, of B., I. c. ), — whether some of the peculiarities commonly called Hebra- 
istic should not rather be considered characteristics of the ordinary spoken 
language (see especially J. Donaldson I. c), — whether we may admit that the 
N. T, syntax betrays the influence of the Latin (A. Buttm. I. c). Many of the 
coincidences between Dilodern Greek and the Greek of the N. T. will be referred 
to in the following pages.] 



Section V. 


1. The best MSS. of the N. T., like those of Greek authors 
generally/ exhibit extraordinary variations of orthography, 
especially in particular words and forms ; and there are not 
always clear grounds for deciding which mode of spelling is 
correct. Editors of the text have to adopt some definite rule, 
and consistently adhere to it. On several points, however, 
though the work of collation has of late been executed with 
greater diplomatic exactness, a still more careful investigation 
of the MS. evidence is yet to be desired. To proceed to 
details : — 

{a) The use of the apostrophe to prevent hiatus is, in general, 
much less frequent in the MSS. of the K T. and of the LXX 
than in the texts of native Greek authors (especially the 
orators ^). " Afia, apa, apa, 76, e/xe, en, Xva, w9T6, are never 
elided ; hk (before av) ^ and oh'^i very seldom : Mt. xxiii. 16, 18, 
xxiv. 21, Eom. ix. 7, 1 C. xiv. 21, H. viii. 4, L. x. 10, 2 C. iii. 16, 
xi. 21, Ph. ii. 18, 1 Jo. ii. 5, iii. 17. Only the prepositions' airo, 
Slci, iiTi, irapd, fjuerd, and the conjunction dWd, regularly suffer 
elision; the prepositions especially before pronouns and in 
phrases of frequent occurrence, such as dir dp'x^fj'i, — dvTtonly in 
dp6' MP. Even here however MSS. vary, sometimes even the 
best, especially in regard to dXkd. Thus we find in A and 

' See Popi>o, Thuc. I. ]). 214, Mattli. 42. 

2 Coiii[). Ji(;iis(;ler, JJe lilalii in Scrljd. Ur. (I't. L : Friberg, 1841) ; De hiatu 
in Demost/t. (ih. 1847). 

** [Ae is always elided before «c in tlie N. T., and not, I Ix^licve, before any 
other word ; for in Ph. ii. 18 we should probably read to 2i avro.] 


several other MSS., dWa dXTjOeiaf; A. xxvi. 25, dWa aTrcoaavro 
A.vii. 39, dWa oySoov 2 P.ii. 5; also, in the best MS8., dXkd v^d<; 
2 C. xii. 14, dWa vm G. iv. 7. MS. autliority is also in favour 
of yitera dvSp6<; L. ii. 36, /lera eiKoai xiv. 31, /lera dirlarov 2 C. 
vi. 15, avro dvaroXcov Ivev. xxi. 13, «tto da6ev€La<; II. xi. 34, 
ciTTo 'ASdfjb Jude 1 4, Sm et^of? 2 C. v. 7. Compare also A. ix. 6, 
X. 20, xvi. 37, 2 C. iv. 2, v. 12, L. xi. 17 (eVt oZ/coi/), Mt. xxi. 5 
(eVi oVoi»), etc. In L. iii. 2 eVl «/D^^tepeox?, Mt. xxiv. 7 eVt 
edvo^, 1 C. vi. 1 1 dWd direkovaaaOe, dWd iSLKaKoOrjre, the 
weight of authority is against the elision : in Eoin. vii. 13 aXX' 
and dXkd have equal support.^ As the Ionic dialect is distin- 
guished by indifference to hiatus, this peculiarity of IST. T. Greek 
was formerly considered an lonism : in Attic prose however 
elision is sometimes neglected, though all the instances which 
Georgi (ffierocr. I. 143) produces from Plato may not be trust- 
worthy. See Buttm. I. 123 sqq. (Jelf 16 sq.)."'^ It is possible 
that the variations may have been guided by some principle : 
Sintenis, for example, has reduced Plutarch's practice to rules 
(Plut. Vit. IV. 321 sqq.). So in the K T. we might occasionally 
account for the absence of elision by reference to the writer's 
meaning ; not imagining however that the Apostles would 
bestow attention on such matters as these, but regarding the 
choice as the result of a natural instinct. But the risk of trifling 
would here be very great (Bengel on 1 C. vi. 11). 

In the poetical quotation from Menander, 1 C. xv. 33, even 
Lachmann reads XPW^' ojxiXiaL KaKal (comp. Georgi, Hier. I. 186), 
although the best MSS. of the N. T. have the unelided form xpW'^i 
which Tisch endorf has received. ^ 

(b) In regard to the final ? of ourwf;, fxe-^pL^;, and the so-called 
V 6<f)e\/cv(rTiK6v,^ the editors have for the most part followed the 
ordinary rule, which however has been limited by recent gram^- 
marians: see Buttm. I. 92 sqq. (Jelf 20). A more prudent 
course is to follow the best MSS. in each case: accordingly recent 

^ Comp, also Sturz p. 125. 

2 See also Heupel, Marc. p. 33 ; Benseler's excursus to his ed. of Isocr. Areop. 
p. 385 sqq. ; Jacobs, Prcef. ad JE\. Anim. p. 29 sq. ; Poppo, Thuc. III. ii. 
p. 358. 

' [Lachm. reads x?'^"^ ■> I'ot x.P^'<^^^ (Bee.) : see Jelf 63. 2.] 

* See Voemel, be v et s adductls Uteris (Frankf. on M. 1853) ; Haake, 
Beiträge z. griech. Grammat. 1 Heft. [Lobeck, Path. Elem. II. pp. 158-218; 
Kühner I. 227-232 ; G. Meyer, GHech. Gram. pp. 259-264.] 


editors of the N. T., following the uncial MSS./ uniformly 
receive ovrco^ and the v e^eKKva-TiKov^^ Classical philologers 
have endeavoured to discover some fixed principle which might 
determine the preference of one or the other form in Greek 
prose/ and it is not in itself improbable that the more careful 
writers would be guided by euphony (Franke in Jahn's JaJirb. 
1842, p. 247) and other considerations;* though ancient gram- 
marians af&rm (Bekk. Anecd. III. p. 1400) that even in Attic 
Greek the v was inserted before both consonants and vowels 
without distinction (Jacobs, Prmf. ad M\.. Anim. p. 23 sq.), and 
the MS. evidence confirms this assertion.^ On /-te^j^/oi and 
MxP^'^} a%/ot and ci'^^pt';, in particular, see Jacobs, Achill. Tat, 
p. 479. According to the grammarians /^ep^p^ and a%pt are the 

1 Tisch. Prcef. ad N. T. p. 23 (ed. 2) : [p. 53, ed. 7.] 

^ [Of recent editors Tregelles and Alford adhere to the principle of writing 
cvTus before consonants : Tregelles invariably, Alford except in Mt. vii. 17. 
Lachmann followed the evidence presented in each passage, but was often led 
astray by imperfect collations : he admitted ovtu in A. xxiii. 11, Ph. iii. 17, 
H. xii. 21, Eev. xvi. 18, Rom. i. 15, vi. 19, 1 C. vii. 40. Tischendorf in ed. 7 
admitted ovtu once only (Rev. xvi. 18), but in ed. 8 agrees with Lachmann in 
the first four of the passages quoted above. Westcott and Hort omit the 5 ten 
times ; viz. in Mt. iii. 15, vii. 17, Mk. ii. 7, A. xiii. 47, xxiii. 11, Rom. i. 15, 
vi. 19, Ph. iii. 17, H. xii. 21, Rev. xvi. 18. In A. xxiii. 11 and in Ph. iv. 1 
this word is followed by o- : in Ph. iv. 1, however, all recent editors (apparently) 
read ovtu;. — The v i(piXxu(TTncov is naturally dealt with upon the same principles. 
Again we find very great uniformity in the texts of Tregelles and Alford, who 
almost invariably insert the v. The few exceptions I have noted are nearly all 
found in plural datives. Thus l)v(rl is received by Tregelles in Mt. vi. 24 and 
L. xvi. 13, by Alford in L. xvi. 13 and A. xxi. 33 ; other examples in Alford's 
text will be found in A. xvii. 25, xxi. 33, Rom. ii. 8. Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Westcott and Hort omit the v somewhat more freely, following the evidence in 
each case. Thus Lachmann reads To-tri five times' and lutrl four ; Tisch, (ed. 8), 
•yratri five times and lv(rl three. In the text of Westcott and Hort <ra<r/y occurs 
before a consonant forty times, -^affi fourteen ; ^wir/v and ^wo-/ each three times. 
See also Mt. vii. 15, xx. 12, A. iL 22, x. 41, xxi 33, Rom. ii. 8, 2 Tim. iv. 8, 
where the v is omitted in the dative plural by one or more of these editors. In 
verbs the omission is apparently very rare. In Lachmann's text examples 
will be found in L. i. 3, 9, A. ii. 6, vii. 25 ; in Tischendorf's, in L. i. 3, 9, Jo. 
X. 14. Westcott and Hort omit v in these passages except A. vii. 25, and read 
ä.'7rix,ov<n, itrrt, in Mt. vi. 5, 25 : in their text of Romans, if I mistake not, there 
are in all not more than eight instances of omission, — five in the dative plural, 
three in verbal inflexions (xartx^/vs, iTiju,ivuffi, i^ocTocTuri). In many instances, 
however, the alternative reading is given in their Appendix. See Scrivener, 
(JrUicisrn.. p. 48G srpj.. Cod. Sin. p. liv, A. Ikittin. Gr. p. 9.] 

^ Bornem. Dc. (jcm. Cyr. rec. p. 89 (with whom Poppo agrees, Ind. to Cyr.) ; 
Frotscher, Xen. Hier. p. 9 ; Bremi, Mac\\. Ctes. 3, 4 ; Schaff. Dem. I. 207 ; 
Miitzner, ÄnÜpJi. p. 192. 

■* We arc not here concerned with the much-disputed questions, whether ovrui 
(Schaef. PLut. V. 219) or ovtm (I5uttm. 11. 264) was the original form, and 
whether v f(pikx. really belongs to the forms to which it is attached : see Rost, 
p. 47 ; Krüger, p. 31. [Don. pp. 53, 80, 193; Lobeck u.s. p. 203; Curtius, 
Grundz. p. 54, Greek Verb, \). 41 (Trans.).] 

^ Comp, also Bachmann, Lycophr. I. 15G ; Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 185. 


Attic forms, even when a vowel follows (Th. M. p. 135, Phryn. 
p. 14, comp. Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 8. 6. 20); and though good 
MSS. of Attic authors are not unfrequently on the other side, 
this rule has been followed by modern editors. Comp. Stalllj. 
Plat. Phccd. p. 183, Sj/miios. p. 128, Schief Plut V. p. 268, 
and see on the whole Klotz, Devar. p. 231. In the N. T. the 
best MSS. have fi^xP^ invariably : «xpt before consonants and 
sometimes before vowels, A. xi. 5, xxviii. 15 ; but axpi's ov is 
best supported in Rom. xi. 25, 1 C. xi. 26, xv. 25, al. (also 
in A. vii. 18).^ 

The MSS. vary also between ct/coo-t and ctKocrti/, but the best are 
said to omit the v, see Tisch. Prcef. ad N. T. ]}. 23. [Proleg. p. 54, 
ed. 7] ; the matter is but seldom noticed in the apparatus. In 
A. XX. 15 most authorities have avTiKpv;, not dvTiKpv; on this see 
Lob. p. 444, Buttm. II. p. 366. 

(c) In compounds whose first part ends in 9, Knapp — after 
Wolf {Lit. AnalecL I. 460 sqq., comp. Krug. p. 11) — intro- 
duced the practice of writing 9 instead of a, as co^Trep, 09x^9, 
8u<;koXo<;, ehcpepecv : he has been followed by Schulz and 
Fritzsche. Matthias's objections (§ 1. Eem. 5), however, 
deserve all attention ; and no value should be attached to this 
orthographical rule, especially as it has no historical basis. 
Schneider in Plato and Lachmann in the ^N". T. write cocrirep, 
elaaKoveiv, &c. ; Hermann prefers 9. That 9 would be inad- 
missible in such words as irpeaßvrepo^, ßXaa^rjiJLelv, reXea- 
<j)op6Lv, is obvious.^ 

(d) Of more importance than all this is the peculiar spell- 
ing of certain words and classes of words, which is found in 
the MSS. of the N. T, and has been received into the text 
by Lachmann and Tischendorf in almost every case. This 
includes peculiarities of the Alexandrian orthography and 

1. For ei/cKtt we sometimes find in the MSS. (and in Bee.) the 
properly Ionic form eivcKa or etveKev (Wolf, Dem. Le^yt. p. 388, Georgi, 
Eier. I. 182), as L. iv. 18, 2 C. iii. 10, vii. 12 ; and elsewhere cve/cev, 
as Mt. xix. 29, Rom. viii. 36. The authority of good MSS. must 

^ [Before a vowel f^izp' occurs in L. xvi. 16 (Tisch., al.), f^ixpn in Mk. xiii. 30, 
H. xii. 4 (G. iv. 19) : before a cons. iui;^pi is always used. In Tisch, (ed. 8) a;^;^/ 
occurs fourteen times before a vowel, ec;^pi; twice only : oixp's ov is much less 
common than »XP' °"- ^^ these words see Lob. Path. El. II. 210.] 

2 [In ed. 8, Tisch, writes <r even at the end of a word. See further Lipsius, 
Grammat. Untersuchungen über die bibl. Gräcität, p. 122 (Leipz. 1863).] 


alone decide here, comp. Poppo, Cyrop. p. xxxix and Index s. v. with 
Buttm. II. 369 ; for the N. T., at any rate, no rule can be laid down 
for the distinctive use^ of the two forms. 2 

2. For ivvevrjKovTa, Mt. xviii. 12, 13, L. xv. 4, 7, we should 
rather write ivev-qKovra, in accordance with good MSS. of Greek 
authors and of the N. T. (e.g. D) and with the Etijm. Magn. : see 
Buttra. I. 277, Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 47 (Don. p. 144). "Ej/aro? 
also — a form very common in Greek prose,^ and also found in the 
Eosetta inscription (line 4) — is supported by good MSS. in Mt. xx. 5, 
xxvii. 45, L. xxiii. 44, A. x. 30, al. : compare also Rinck, Lucub. 
p. 33. "Ei/aros was preferred by as early a critic as Bengel {Appar. 
ad Mt. XX. 5). 4 

3. The Ionic forms (Matth. 10. 1) ricraepe.^, Tea-a-cpaKovTa, are some- 
times found in good MSS., especially A and C (e.g. in A. iv. 22, 
vii. 42, xiii. 18, Rev. xi. 2, xiii. 5, xiv. 1, xxi. 17), and have been 
received into the text by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The same 
forms often occur in MSS. of the LXX (Sturz p. 118). In 
these documents, however, a and e are frequently interchanged ; 
and such readings as iKaOepccrOr] Mt. viii. 3, iKaOepco-Orjcrav L. xvii. 14, 
KeKaOepidfjiivovs H. X. 2 (A), will hardly be preferred by any 

4. BaXdvTiov. In all the places in which this word occurs (L. x. 
4, xii. 33, xxii. 35, 36) good MSS. have ßaXkavriov, and this form 
is received by Lachm. and Tischendorf In MSS. of classical authors 
also we find the doubled X, both in ßakXdvTLov itself (Bornem. Xen. 
Conv. p. 100) and in its derivatives, and Bekker has received it 
in Plato ; see however Dindorf, Aristoph. Emi. 772, Schneider, Plat. 
Civ. I. p. 75, III. p. 38. — KpdßßaTo<i is but seldom written with a 
single ß, and then usually Kpdßarro^;.^ 

5. On v7ro7ndt,üi (viroTrUCu)), a various reading for vTrw-n-idlo) (from 
vTTWTTtov), L. xviii. 5, 1 0. ix, 27, see Lob. p. 461. It is probably 
no more than an error of transcription ; for the more characteristic 
{iTTooTTttt^oj certainly proceeds from Paul, and has long stood in the 
t,ext. — Whether we should write avwyatov or dvdyaiov can hardly be 
decided, the authorities for each being nearly equal : the former is 

* Weber, Demosth. p. 403 sq. On tliis see also Brerai, Exc. vi. ad Lysiam, p. 
443 (Jelf 10. Ob.H. 2.) 

'^ ["Ev£xa is found three times in Bee, twice in Tischendorf's 7th edition, five 
times in Ids 8th : for I'lviKtv see L. iv. 18, 2 C. iii. 10, L. xviii. 29, A. xxviii. 20. 
Elsewhere 'ivixiv is the form used, before both vowels and consonants : tlviKcc is 
not mentioned in Tischendorfs api)aiatus.] 

3 Sec. Scluef. Mdef. p. 32 ; S(;h()l. ad Apoll. Argon. 2. 788. 

* [Of both these forms Tiscli. {J*rol('(j. p. 49, ed. 7) says, " i)lenissimam ubique 
auctoritatem habent : " tviv^fcovr^jc. indeed has the sii|)port of all the uncial MSS.] 

^ [Tiscli. in ed. 7 reecdved Uahp. in Mt. viii. 3, Mk. i. 42, L. iv. 27, A. x. 15 ; 
in the first two passages he retains this reading in ed. 8. See his notes on L. iv. 
27, A. X. 15. K never has this form ; B in these two places only. — Tisch, receives 
Tiirinpu.K. (on very strong authority) and ritraipa throughout, but never rio-fftpis 
or rKTo-ifix;. In ed. 7 Ik; admitted tlie latt(!r form in \ir,v. iv. 4, vii. l.J 

'^ [in the N. T. Kfd.ßxrroi is now generally received.] 


derived from the adverh arcD, the latter from dvd (Fritz. Marl; p. 
Gil) ; see also Lob. p. 21)7.^ 

6. naroiKt, A. xvi. 34 (comp. Dat. Eryx. 392 c, JEsch. Dial. 2. 1, 
Joseph. Aiit. 4. 4. 4, 3 ^lacc. iii. 27), is the only word in the N. T. 
connected with the well-known dis])ute respecting the adverbial 
ending t or ct : see Herrn. Soph. ylj. p. 183, Sturz, OpiLsc. p. 229 
sqq. Perhaps Blomfield {Glossar, in -^sch. From. p. 131 sq.) is 
right in adopting t for such adverbs, when derived from nouns in 
OS, — hence iravoLKc (properly iravoiKoi, which is the reading of some 
MSS. in this passage).^ Yet the MSS. are almost always in favour 
of « ; see Poppo, Time. IL i. 1540, Lob. p. 515. 

7. Should we write AamS or AaßlS 1 See Gersdorf, Sprachch. 
p. 44, Mdio leaves the question undecided, but is in favour of Aa^StS. 
The abbreviation AäS is the most common form in the MSS. : where 
however the word is wTitten in full, the oldest and best MSS. have 
AavtS (AauetS), and this orthography — which was long ago preferred 
by Montfaucon (Palmogr. Gr. 5. 1) — has been received by Knapp, 
Schulz, Fritzsche, and Tischendorf. Lachm. always writes AavctS. 
Compare further Bleek on H. iv. 7.^ 

8. The name Moses is written Mwijcr?}? in the best MSS. of the 
N. T., as in the LXX. and Josephus ; and this form has been adopted 
by Knapp, Schulz, Lachm., ^ and Tischendorf Still it may be a 
question whether this properly Coptic form, which is naturally found 
in the LXX, should not in the N. T. give place to Mojo->}s (Scholz), 
which comes nearer to the Hebrew and w^as at all events the more 
usual form, which also passed over to the Greeks (Strabo 16. 760 
sq.) and Romans. On the diaeresis in Mwrcn}?, which Lachm. omits, 
see Fritz. Rom. IL 313. 

9. As to KoXoo-o-at and KoXao-o-at see the commentators on CoL i. 1. 
The first of these forms is found not only on the coins of this town 
(Eckhel, Dock, numor. vett. I. iii. 147), but also in the best MSS. of 
classical authors (comp. Xen. Anah. 1. 2. 6) ; hence Yalckenaer (on 
Her. 7. 30) declared himself in favour of it. In the N. T., however, 
KoXao-crat is better attested, and is received by Lachm. and Tisch. : 
it probably represents the popular pronunciation.^ 

^ [The evidence which is now before us is strongly in favour of avaya/av, which 
is received by most recent editors. Comp. Mullach, Vulg. p. 21.] 

^ [Compare Kühner, I. 726 (Jelf 342. 2). lu A. xvi. Lachm. and Treg. write 
-k1 ; Tisch., Weste, and Hort, -xe/.] 

3 [For a full statement of the MS. evidence see Tisch, on ]\It. i. 1 (ed. 8). 
Aat's/^ is adopted by Tisch., Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort ; see Alford, 
Vol. I. Proleg. p. 95.] 

* [Except in Rom. ix. 15. Most of the best MSS. have [x,uirris occasionally, 
but the form with iJ (or v) seems now generally received. Fritz, writes u'C be- 
cause the Coptic original is a trisyllable, and tuvto, Iuutou, &c., are not really 
parallel : Tisch. {Proleg. p. 62, ed. 7) quotes MS. authority on the same side. 
See also Lipsius, p. 140.] 

* [We now know that in Col. i. 2 B has KoXeo-iraTs a prima manu, so that K 
and B agree in this form here. In the title and subscription there is consider- 
able authority for KoXatrffaiTs. See Tischendorf's note, and especially Lightfoot 
on Colossians, pp. 16-18.] 


10. For eweo?, A. ix. 7, it is better to write cvcos (comp, avcw?), 
according to the best MSS. 

11. The un-Attic form ov6ci<s, ovOev, is found in the N. T. in a 
few good MSS. only, L. xxiii. 14, 1 C. xiii. 2, 3, 2 C. xi. 8, A. xv. 9, 
xix. 27 ; fXTjOevA. xxiii. 14, xxvii. 33 : see Lob. p. 181 [and Path. El. 
II. 344]. Ifc is also found in the LXX (Bornem. Ad. p. 115), and 
on Greek papyrus rolls. 

12. 'BOvOrj, 1 0. V. 7 (Eh.), for which all the better MSS. have 
irvOr) (Buttm. I. 78, Jelf 31), is unusual, but rests on an unexcep- 
tionable retention of the radical where there is no reduplication, 
like XiOwOrjvac, KaOopOrjvai [) KaOapOrjvat] ; though both Oveiv and 
6eLvaL, the only verbal stems that begin with ß and form a 1 aor., 
change the radical into t in this tense (Lob. Paral. -p. 45). The 
partic. 6v6a^, formed on the same analogy, occurs Dio Cass. 45. 17 ; 
in ^sch. Choeph. 242 the editions have Tv6a<^. It is not unlikely 
that edv$y] was written by Paul, and displaced by the tran- 

13. For xpewc^eiXervys, L. vü. 41, xvi. 5, the best MSS. have 
XpeocfieL\eTr]<;, a form which Zonaras rejects, and which is found only 
once in MSS. of Greek authors : see Lob. p. 691. 

14. The aspirate for the tenuis in e^tSe A. iv. 29, and d^tSw 
Ph. ii. 23, is received by Lachm. on MS. authority. Other examples 
of a similar kind are icf) cXTrtSt 1 C ix. 10, d^eÄTri^oi/rc? L. vi. 35, 
ovx oxj/eaOe L. xvii. 22, ov;>( 'lovSatKo)? G. ii. 14, ov^ oXtyo? A. xii. 
18, al. : comp. Bornem. Act. p. 24. Analogous forms are found in 
the LXX (Sturz, p. 127) and in Greek inscriptions (Böckh, Inscript. 
I. 301, II. 774), and are explained by the fact that many of these 
words (as cAttis, ISetv) had been pronounced with the digamma.^ 

15. npaijs and Trpavrrj? are the best attested forms in the N. T., 
though Photius (Lexic. p. 386, Lips.) gives the preference to Trpaos : 
see however Lob. p. 403 sq.^ 

16. 'Ex^es (not x^e'^j Lob. Path. I. 47) was introduced into the 
text by Lachm. from the best MSS.^ 

1 [Amongst other instances may be mentioned '»(p' Ik-rl^t Rom. viii. 20, A. ii. 
26, i(puäiv h. i. 25, ov;^ I'^ov A. ii. 7. In some instances (as Ph. ii. 23, G. ii. 14, 
A. ii. 7, 26, Rom. viii. 20) the aspirate is well supported : it is received more or 
less frequently by Lachm., Meyer, Alf., Ellic, Westcott and Hort, and Tisch, 
(esp. in cd. 7). Conversely, ovx is found before an aspirate in Jo. viii. 44, ovx 
iffrrixiv (Tisch., but See below, p. 106) ; so also L. xxiv. 3, A. iii. 6, in X and C. 
Similar examples are found in the MSS. of the LXX, as ovx 'JTa.p;i^it Job xxxviii. 
26, xecf o^eot,Xfjt,ovi Kz. XX. 14. (In Mt. v. 33, J< has i(ptopxri(ni;, and Mullach, 
VuU). p. 22, quotes l(piopxovvTi from Marm. Oxon. IL 1. 69. 78 : ix-r'n also occurs 
in inscriptions.) See Tisch. Proleg. p. 52 (ed. 7), N. T. Vatic, p. xxviii, and 
Prohg. nd LXX. p. 33 ; A. liuttm. Or. p. 7 ; Mullach, Vulg. pp. 22, 146 ; 
Don. p. 17 ; Scrivener, Coll. of Cod. Sin. p. Iv ; Li<^litfoot on G. ii. 14, and 
Ph. ii. 20; and compare Scrivener, Criticium, p. 491, where it is maintained 
that such forms are mere mistakes of the scribe.] 

'-^ [Tisch. has •^rpaiii, TpauTVi, in every case ; Lachm. -rpxorvi twice, G. vi. 1, E. 
iv. 2 : see Tisch. Proleg. p. 50 (ed. 7), Lipsius p. 7, A. liuttm. p. 26.] 

3 [a. The Attic tt for ffff is found in but few words. Kpurruv is much more 
common than xpiia-ffuv. "Uttuv occurs twice in Pec, but the true reading is 


2. Whether such words as Blcl tl, Iva tl, Bid ye, dWd ye, dir 
dpTi, TOUT eaTc should be written as two words or one, can 
scarcely be decided on any general princi[)le ; and the remark- 
able variations in the better MSS. make the question of less 
importance. In most instances Knapp has preferred to unite 
the words ; and certainly in expressions of frequent occurrence 
two small words do naturally coalesce in pronunciation, as is 
shown by the erases, Sto, Blotc, KaOd, coaTe, — also by /MrjKeTL, etc. 
Schulz maintains the opposite view : but would he write ec ye, 
TOL vvv, ovK €Ti, ctc. ? How mucli the MSS., on the average, are 
in favour of uniting the words, may be seen from Poppo, Time. 
I. p. 455. Schulz himself writes BcaTravTo^; in Mk. v. 5, L. 
xxiv. 53 ; and Schneider in Plato almost always joins the words. 

r.^Tuv ; of ixtiirruv both forms are used. The derivatives from these last have 
TT, except in 2 C. xii. 13 {rKTtruhri). 

h. ft), pff. Both afifviv and oipifytv occur in Rec, and in Rom. i. 27 Tisch, now 
reads a/j^>!v three times ; but a.p(rr,v is probably the true reading throughout the 
K. T. Qocppuv occurs frequently, and 6oip(Tu also (in the Gospels and Acts) ; 
Tvppo;, Rev. vi. 4 ; 6a.p(To?, A. xxviii. 15. 

c. For ^lccT6ct7oi recent editors write M^^^arö,- (comp. Jelf 22. 3\ see Mt. i. 15, 
L. iii. 24, 29, A. i. 23, 26. Compare Scrivener, Critic, p. 488 sq. 

d. 'luxwris is most frequently written by Tregelles and by Westcott and Hort 
with a single v (comp. Scrivener, I.e.) : on ysv»?/*«, which is very well supported 
in Mt. xxvi. 29, Mk. xiv. 25, L. (xii. 18) xxii. 18, 2 C. ix. 10, see Tisch. Proleg. 
p. 48 (ed. 7). 

e. The MSS. frequently vary between /a and ua. in the terminations of nouns. 
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort write fjLiSotia., aXcctovia., (/.ccylcc, xußicc, apio-Ktm, 
'AttäX/«, Ka.iira.pix, etc. ; and the latter editors uniformly adopt the forms d-TriJia, 
ipii'ia,, axpiXia, iTiuxta, it^ukokitrpict. A similar Variation is found in other words 
(as ^ccvi'^M, lo(.\Krrr,i), especially in proper names and foreign words ; sometimes it 
is v^ery difficult to decide between / and u. See Tisch. Proleg. p. 51 (ed. 7), 
Alford I. Proleg. p. 96 sq. 

/. The breathings are often interchanged in proper names and foreign words ; 

thus Tisch, writes 'H<ra]iaj, 'fi<r>?£, hy^ii, ^EpfjLoy'iyrii, uffo-vva., etc. : — olXvcri; is in the 

N. T. written mth the aspirate, aXoaiw without. See Lipsius, Gr. Unt. p. 18 sqq. 
g. Miscellaneous examples : dvavupoi L. xiv. 13, 21, dxpiou Rom, iii. 12, Z,ßivvvu 
1 Th. V. 19 (Tisch, ed. 7, comp. Shilleto, Dem. Fals. Leg. p. 130), o-yÄs^a^U and 
-fiup'ta. L. xix. 4 (see Tisch, in loc), vtKpdkio; (not -kios), ffrißä? Mk. xi. 8. On 
voafföi L. ii. 24, vo(T(Ttov Mt. xxiii. 37, h voatnä L. xiii. 34, see Sturz p. 183, Lidd. 
and Scott s.w. For a-Tvpis the collateral form a-^vpls is a constant v.l. in one or 
more of the most ancient MSS. ; it is received by Lachm. in Mt. xvi. 10, Mk. 
viii. 8, and always by Westcott and Hort. There is good authority for ipxwdca 

Jo. V. 39, al., vpoifjio; Ja. v. 7, fd.a.(ia.ofJia.i Rev. xvi. 10, Iro'iKo; A. xvii. 18, -rarpo- 

and f^nrpoXuxi 1 Tim. i. 9, ctpixev Rev. xviii. 12 ; Lachmann reads päKKo? in 
Mk. ii. 21. On kiyiüv, Xiyiuv, see Tisch. Proleg. p. 50 (ed. 7) and note on Mt. 
xx\i. 53 (ed. 8), Alford I.e. p. 96; on dxiui, aXuTs, Tisch. Proleg. I.e., note 
on Mk. i. 16 (ed. 8), Alford I.e. p. 94 : Tisch, reads ksyniv and aXuTi in ed. 8. 
For an example of the extreme fluctuation of the MSS. in certain proper 
names see the note on "Nazareth" in Alford I.e. p. 97, Scrivener, Critic. 
p. 488. It should be added that editors frequently ditfer in regard to the use 
of the diaeresis, especially in proper names : thus we find rdios and rates, 
Kcc'i'ci^ets and Katdfas, etc.] 


Many inconveniences, however, might arise from adopting 
either mode exclusively; and as the oldest and best K T. MSS. 
are written continuously, and therefore give ns no help here, the 
most prudent plan would be regularly to unite the words in 
the K T. text in the following cases : — 

(a) "Where the language supplies an obvious analogy ; thus 
ovK6Tt as fjL7}KeTL, TOijap as Tolvvv, 09Tt9 comparc otov. 

(h) Where one of the words is not in use uncombined (in 
prose) ; hence elirep, Kaiirep. 

(c) Where an enclitic follows a word of one or two syllables, 
in combination with which it usually expresses a single notion, 
as elVe, ecye, apaye; but not Btdye ttjv avalSeLav, L. xi. 8 
(Lachm. Bid ye). 

(d) Where the two modes of writing are used to express two 
different meanings : thus 6(;tc^ovv quicumque, but 09 rt? ovv Mt. 
xviii. 4, quisquis igitur (Buttm. I. 308) ; i^avrrj^ the adverb, and 
i^ avrrj^ ; — not to mention ovBek and ovK eh. In the MSS., 
however, the ovv (of 6<;tl<;ovv, etc.) usually stands alone, and the 
writers themselves sometimes separate it by a conjunction from 
the word to which it belongs : see Jacobs, Frmf. ad ^lian. Anim. 
p. 25. In detail much must be left to the editor's judgment ; 
but there can hardly be any sufficient reason for writing Bia- 
iravTo^ or virepeyco (2 C. xi. 23, Lachm.), and the like. Still we 
must bear in mind that in the Greek of the IST. T., so closely 
related to the ordinary spoken language, orthographical com- 
binations would be especially natural.^ 

The neuter of the pronoun osrts was formerly written 6,tl (with 
the hypodiastole) in editions of the N. T., as L. x. 35, Jo. ii. 5, 
xiv. 13, 1 C. xvi. 2, al. Lachmann, after Bekker, introduced o rt 
(as OS Tt9, y Tis). 2 Others, as Schneider (Plat. Civ. I. Prcef. 
p. 48 sq.),'^ even think it unnecessary to separate the words. Much 
may be said in favour of writing the pronoun ort as one word ; inter 
alia, that then the reader is not influenced in favour of a particular 
interpretation of the text. It has indeed been doubted in many 
passages of the N. T., e.g. in Jo. viii. 25, A. ix. 27, 2 C. iii. 14, whether 
this word should ho regarded as the pronoun or as the conjunction. 
When however this question has been once decided, it is safest to 

1 [See Lipsius, Or. Unt. pp. 124-134, where this subject is more minutely 
examined: see al.sf> Loh. j). 48.] 

2 [Lachmann wiites öVt/;, rirn and follows Bekker in n only.] 
8 Comp. Jen. Lit. Z. 18U9. IV. 174. 


write o TL (with a space between) or o,tl (with the hypodiastole) in 
the case of the pronoun. ^ 

3. Crasis '^ is on tlie whole rare, and is confined to certain 
expressions of frequent occurrence : in these, however, it is 
found almost without variation. It is most common in Kuyoi), 
Kav, KUKel, KatceWev, KuKelvo^i: we find also Kufioi, L. i. 3, 
A. viii. 19, 1 C. iii. 1 [Kayu)], xv. 8 ; Ka/ie, Jo. vii. 28, 1 C. 
xvi. 4 ; TovvavTiov, 2 C. ii. 7, G. ii. 7, 1 T. iii. 9 ; and once 
Tovvofia, Mt. xxvii. 57. On the other hand, we always find 
Ta avrd in good MSS. : see L. vi. 23, xvii. 30, 1 Th. ii. 14.^ 
TovrecTTt, KaOd, KaOdirep, and the like, are only improperly 
termed examples of crasis. 

Contraction is but seldom neglected in the ordinary cases ; 
see §§ 8 and 9 on oarea, '^eiXecov, voi\ and the like. In L. viii. 38 
the best MSS. have iBeero, a form often found in Xenophon : 
see Irr. V. s. v., Lob. p. 220 (Jelf 239. 3)} The verb Kafi- 
fjLvecv exhibits a contraction of a peculiar kind : comp. Lob. 
p. 340. 

There is good authority for koL iKcl, Mt. v. 23, xxviii. 10, Mk. 
i. 35, 38 ; KOL iKeWev Mk. X. 1 j kol €K€Lvol^ Mt. XX. 4 1 \_Kal iy(i) 
L. xvi. 9], etc. 

4. In the earlier editions of the N. T. the t subscript was 
too frequently introduced : ^ this abuse was first censured by 
Knapp. The c must certainly be rejected — 

(a) In a crasis with kui, when the first syllable of the second 
word does not contain c (as Kara from Kal elra) ; thus Kayco, 
KufioL, KuKelvo^, Kav, KOLKei, KciKeWev, etc.: see Herm. Vig. p. 526, 
Buttm. I. 114 (Jelf 13). The l subscript is however defended 
by Thiersch (Gr. § 38 Anm. 1), and Poppo has retained it in 
Thucydides after the best MSS. {Thuc. II. i. p. 149). 

* [See Lipsius p. 118 sq.] 

^ Alliens, De Crasi et Aphxeresi (Stollberg, 1845). 

' [In these passaf^es some of the oldest MSS. have ravra, which may be ntlra.. 
Laclim. reads Tcclrdt. in L. xvii. 30 and {in marg.) L. vi. 23, but the accentuated 
MSS. are against this.] 

* Compare Fritz. De Conf. crit. p. 32. [üncontracted forms from 'hio//.eti are 
frequently found in the MSS. of Xenophon, but in most instances they have 
been altered by the editors : see Veitch, Gr. Verbs, p. 159. In regard to 
L. viii, it should rather be said that some of the best MSS. have IVuto. A 
similar example is ix;^££t£, Rev. xvi. 1.] 

* [On the practice of Biblical MSS. in regard to < subscript and ascript see 
Lipsius p. 3, Scrivener, Critic, pp. 41 sq., 160.] 


(h) In the 2 perf. [? 1 perf.] and 1 aor. act. of the verb aipw 
and its compounds: thus ypKev Col. ii. 14, apao Mt. xxiv. 17, 
apov Mt. ix. 6, ypav Mt. xiv. 12, apa^; 1 C. vi. 15, etc.: see 
Buttm. I. 413, 439, and Poppo, Time. II. i. p. 150. 

(c) In the infinitives ^rjv, hL-^rjv, Treovrjv, j^prjaOai} — properly 
Doric, but also commonly used in Attic (Matth. 48. Eem. 2). 
Some ancient grammarians ^ (later than the commencement of 
our era) affirm that the same rule should be followed in tlie infin. 
of contracted verbs in ao), as ä'yairäv, opäv, ri/jbäv ; probably 
because these forms are immediately derived from (the Doric) 
TLfjbdev, K.T.X., as /jLLaOovu from fiLa66ev: see Wolf in the Lit. 
Ancdekt I. 419 sqq. (Don. p. 256, Jelf 239). Bengel inclined 
towards this orthography, and it has been defended and adopted 
by several scholars.^ Buttmann (I. 490) and Matth. (197. 
b. 5) speak doubtfully ; and many editors — e.g. Lobeck, see his 
Tcclinol. p. 188 — retain the t. It has however, been removed 
from the K T. by Schulz, Lachm., and Tisch. ; comp. E. v. 28, 
Eom. xiii. 8, Mk. viii. 32, Jo. xvi. 19.* 

{cl) There is nothing decisive in favour of irpao^ (Lob. Phryn. 
p. 403, Pathol. 1. 442) ; yet see Buttm. I. 255. ITpwi'also, from 
Trpo, should not have t subscript : see on this word generally 
Buttmann, Plat. Crito, p. 43, Lexil. 17. 2. 

{e) On irdvTT], A. xxiv. 3, see Buttm. II. 360 : the t, which is 
rightly found in äXXrj, ravry, which are real datives, should be 
omitted in iravrrj, which has no corresponding nominative. The 
ancient grammarians, however, are of a different opinion (Lob. 
Paral. p. 56 sq.), and Lachmann writes Trdvrrj. Kpvc^r} (E. v. 
12), Dor. Kpv(f)ä — comp. Xen. Conv. 5. 8, — and elKrj (Buttm. 
II. 342) are now the received forms in the N. T. ; comp. 
Poppo, Thuc. IL i. 150. Lachmann still writes \dOpa, though 
\d6pa is probably more correct.^ 

1 [The last of these has surely no ])lace here.] 

2 Comp. Vig. p. 220 ; sec also Gregor. Chfcrobosc. Dictata (ed. Gaisford), 
vol. ii. p. 721. See on tlie other side Herin. Vuj. p. 748. 

•^ Reiz, Luclan iv. p. 393 sc^. (ed. Pnp.) ; Elinsley, Eiirip. 3fe(l. v. 69, and 
Prcef. ad Soph. OiJdip. Ii. p. 9 scp ; Ellendt, Arriau Al. i. p. 14 s(p 

* [A. Buttin. remarks (p. 44) that such forms as xarairxjjvflri/, Mt. xiii. 32, may 
lead us to picfcr «ya^fv, etc., in the N. T. See also Lipsius p. 6.] 

* Schneider, Plat. Civ. I. p. 61 Prcef. ; Ellendt, Lex. So/)h. II. p. 3 sq. 
[LachTuann and Westcott and Ilort insert / in xpu^ti, ukvi, -rxvraxyi, as well as in 
'pruvTri, xä6px (comp. Don. pj). 25, 149, Cobet, N. T. Vatic. \). xii) ; Trcgellcs 
rejects the / in xpvi^r,^ lUn, xüdpx ; Tisch, and Alford in all these words. No 


(/) In ]\rt. xxvii. 4, 24, Lacliin. and subsequent editors 
have written adwov (cWco'iov, Elnisley, Eurip. Med. 1267)/ but 
contrary to all grammatical traditions : Lob. Path. I. 440/ 
[and IL 377]. 

After the example of Bekker and others, Lachmann in his larger 
edition dropped the breathings over pp, as useless ; but he has no 
followers.^ That the iTiomans heard an aspiration with p in the 
middle (as at the beginning) of words, is shown by the orthography 
of FyrrJuis, Tyrrhenes, etc. (Buttm. I. 28). Still less can the initial 
p be written without the aspirate, as is done by many : see Kost, 
Gr. p. 13. (Don. p. 16.) 

The Alexandrians hiid, as is generally admitted (Sturz p. 116 sqq.), 
a special orthography of their own. Tliey not only interchanged 
letters — as at and «, c and r;, t and et (comp. etSea Mt. xxviii. 3),* 
y and K, — but even added superfluous letters, to strengthen the 
forms of words, as cK^öe?, ßaa-tXeav, vvKTav, (f)6dvv€LV, eKXVvvofxevov, 
ecranreLpe, avaßaivvov, yXXaro (A. xiv. 10, vii. 26, COmp. Poppo, Thuc. 
I. 210) ; and rejected others that were really necessary (when a con- 
sonant W^as doubled), as Svcreß-^<;, a-dßacn, dvTaXayixa, (fivXa, epvcraTO, 
apacfio^ (Jo. xix. 23). They also disregarded the expedients by which 
the Greeks avoided a harsh concurrence of many or dissimilar con- 
sonants (Buttm. I. 75 sqq., Jelf 22) ; thus X-^fxif/oixat, dmÄT^/^^öet?, 
{Irr. V. p. 162), TrposooTroAr^/xi/^ia, dTreKTavKacn, iV)(^u)piov, crvvKa\vfXfx.a, 
crvvpr)T€LV [? orvv^rjTctv], crwTrvtyetv, crvvfxaOrjTijs, TrevTrct.^ These peculi- 
arities are found more or less uniformly both in good MSS. of the 
LXX. and N. T. (Tisch. Pra'f. ad N. T. p. 20 sq., ed. 2) which are 
said to have been written in Egypt — as A, B, C (ed. Tisch, p. 21), D 

editor (I believe) omits / in Tt^yi, hf^off/a, /^/a. Jelf (324. 2) writes all these 
adverbs without / subscript, and Kost (p. 318) inclines to the same side : see 
also Kühner, I. 728 (ed. 2).] 

' Comp, also Weber, Dem. p. 231, [who defends u^<^oi ; Paley, Eurip. 3Ied. 
1300 ; Lipsius p. 8 sq. Treg. writes aöuo;.] 

^ There will be no disposition to introduce the forms ivo'v (Wessel on Her. 2. 
68) and ^fav (recently received by Jacobs in ^El. Anim. on the authority of a 
good MS.)— still less <re^^uv — into the N. T. text. Comp. Lob. Path. I. p. 442, 
[and II. p. 378. No editor (apparently) receives (t&I^e/v ; but Lachm. and Cobet 
write ^fov, Jflv, and Tisch, uov. See Lipsius p. 8 sq., Cobet, H. T. Vatic, p. xii, 
and A. Buttmann's review of the last-named work in Stud. u. Krit. 1862 (1. 
Heft, p. 154) : on Tfi^poe. (Lachm. and others), see A. Buttm. Gr. p. 11, and 
Cobet I.e. Lachm. and Tisch, write Tp^^äs : Winer and others, Tpuas. West, 
and Hort insert the / in all these words, except (rü^uv.] 

^ [Tisch, writes pp in the N. T. : he says, " pp prorsus invita cdd. auctoritate 
edi consuevit " {Proleg. p. 276, ed. 7). See also Lipsius, p. 7, Jelf 7, Cobet, 
N. T. Vatic, p. xcvi.] 

4 [E/^EQj is received by Tisch., Treg., AVestcott and Hort : see Tisch. Proleg. 
(p. 49, ed. 7). "Apaipos also, Jo. xix. 23, is found in almost all the ancient MSS.] 

^ [Conversely, such forms as (ju/u-iffeü, lyxavdi (Iv iu,ierv, iv Kava), are found in 
some of the oldest MSS. (Tisch. Proleg. p. 48, ed. 7) and in inscriptions (Don. 
p. 58).] 


of Gospels, D of Paul's Epistles (Tisch. Proleg. ad Cod. Ciarom. p. 18), 
K of GospelSji — and in Coptic and Gra3CO-Coptic documents (Hug, 
Inirod. § 50). We cannot therefore, with Planck,^ reject them at 
once as due to the caprice of copyists, especially as analogies may 
often be adduced from the older dialects. At the same time, many 
are not specially Alexandrian, as they occur in MSS. of Greek authors 
and in inscriptions which cannot be proved to be of Egyptian origin 
{e.g. €L for t, ey for €k, — with X-^/jLif/ofjiaL compare the Ionic Xa/xi/fo/xat, 
Matth. 242) ; and, on the other hand, many Egyptian documents are 
tolerably free from the peculiarities in question. 

These forms have been introduced into the text by Lachm. and 
Tischendorf, on the concurrent testimony of good (but usually few) 
MSS., in Mt. XX. 10, xxi. 22, Mk. xii. 40, L. xx. 47, A. i. 2, 8, 11, 
38,3 Ja, i. 7^ Mk. i. 27, 2 C. vii. 3, Ph. ii. 25, al. ; sometimes without 
citation of authorities, Mt. xix. 29, Jo. xvi. 14, 1 C. iii. 14, Ph. iii. 12, 
Kom. vi. 8, al. Without more decisive reasons, however, than those 
assigned by Tischendorf ^ {Prcef. adN. T. p. 19), we surely ought not 
to attribute to Palestinian writers — especially John, Paul, and James 
— all the peculiarities of the Alexandrian dialect, and particularly of 
the Alexandrian orthography ; and it is not probable that the N. T. 
writers would follow this orthography in comparatively few in- 
stances only.^ Codex B, too, is not yet thoroughly collated in 
this respect. Tischendorf has introduced these forms less frequently 
than the words of his preface (p. 21) would have led us to 

Hence before this orthography is introduced into the N. T. text 
— if the MSS. are to be followed in such points even in editions of 

^ See Hug, Introd. I. § 50 sqq. ; Scholz, Curce Grit, in hist. text. Evangg. 
pp. 40, 6 L 

'^ J)e orationis N. T. indole, p. 25, note. [Bihl. Cab. vol. ii. p. 129.] 
2 [This is no doubt intended for A. ii. 38.] 

* [It will be remembered that Winer is speaking in this paragraph of Tischen- 
dorfs second edition (1849). — Happily we now possess a trustworthy edition of 
Cod. B. Many details respecting its peculiarities of orthography (so far as these 
were known from Mai's edition) will be found in the preface to Kuenen and 
Oobet's N. T. Vaticanum. ] 

* In several words, as ffvXXa.fjt,ßumv, avWa.'kilty ffvfjt.ßoiiXiov, <rvfA,'7rl-7rruv, we find 
no example of this orthography ; in otheis, as ffvxx'iyuv, avyx,a.x{iv, ffutrravpovv, 
lyKuXiiv, it is noted only in isolarted instances. [St/^K^r/V-rf/v occurs in the N. T. 
,once only, in the form ffwi-nffiv ; and of the first three words the irregular 
forms are sometimes found, see Tisch. Proleg. p. 47 (ed. 7). There are some 
interesting observations on tliis subject in tlie above-mentioned article in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1862 (p. 179 sip].). The writer (A. Buttmann) maintains (1) that 
iv is almost always assimilated before labials, comparatively seldom before 
gutturals : — (2) that those compounds in which the writer appears to have 
sim[)ly annexed the prej)OS. to another word in adverbial fasliion, each part of 
the compound preserving its proper meaning, do not assimilate the v ; whilst in 
those compounds whicli were in regular and current use, and in which the two 
parts are fused together so as to express a single new idea, assimilation does 
take place. Compare ffwxXyipovo/nos, imv/uapTvpiTvy a7id similar words, with 
ffvfi-ipipii, ffvf^ßxXXuv, etc. The subject however still needs careful investi- 


the N. T. designed for common use— the whole suhject must receive 
a new and complete examination. One question to be considered 
will be, whether these peculiarities of si)elling, which have been 
supposed to represent the true popular pronunciation, do not rather 
belong to a system of orthography adopted by the learned, somewhat 
as we find in Koman inscriptions on stone i the etymological spelling 
adferrej inlatus, etc.^ 

Section YI. 

1. The accentuation of the K T. text is to be regulated not 
so much by the authority of the oldest accentuated MSS. as 
by the regular tradition of the grammarians. Many points, 
liow^ever, have been left in doubt, and in the careful investiga- 
tions of later scholars a tendency to excessive refinement is 
sometimes observable. We may notice specially the following 
points : — 

(a) According to the ancient grammarians (Mceris p. 193) 
IBe should be written ISe in Attic Greek only, cBe in other 
(later) Greek ; the same distinction being made as between \aße 

^ Schneider, Lat. Or. I. ii. p. 530 sq., 543 sq., 566 sq., al. 

2 [It is now admitted by most that we must, in general, follow the most 
ancient MSS. in regard to peculiarities both of inflexion and of orthography. 
" For a long time it has been most strangely assumed that the linguistic forms 
preserved in the oldest MSS. are Alexandrine and not in the widest sense Hel- 
lenistic. ... In the case of St. Paul, no less than in the case of Herodotus, 
the evidence of the earliest Avitnesses must be decisive as to dialectic forms. 
Egyptian scribes preserved the characteristics of other books, and there is no 
reason to suppose that they altered those of the N. T." (Westcott in Smith's 
Diet, of the Bible, II. p. 531.) The following quotation refers directly to in- 
flexions, but is equally applicable to orthography : " Our practical inference from 
the whole discussion will be, not that Alexandrian inflexions should be inva- 
riably or even usually received into tlie text, as some recent editors have been 
inclined to do, but that they should be judged separately in every case on their 
merits and the support adduced on their behalf ; and be held entitled to no 
other indulgence than that a lower degree of evidence will suffice for them than 
when the sense is aff'ected, inasmuch as idiosyncrasies in spelling are of all 
others the most liable to be gradually and progressively modernised even by 
faithful and painstaking transcribers." (Scrivener, Critic, p. 490.) See Tisch. 
Proleg. p. 43 sqq. (ed. 7) ; Alford, vol. I. Proleg. p. 94 sqq. ; Tregelles, Printed 
Text, p. 178 ; and (against Kuenen and Cobet, who without hesitation substitute 
the ordinary forms of words) A. Buttm. in Stud. u. Krit. I.e. Comp, also JMullach, 
Vulg. p. 21 ; Lightfoot, Clement, p. 26. On the other hand, many peculiarities 
called Alexandrian by Sturz and others are no doubt mere errors in spelling : 
see Scrivener, Critic, p. 10.] 


and 'Kdße : see "Weber, Demosth. p. 173, and comp. Buttm. T. 
448. This rule has been followed by Griesbach (except in G. 
V. 2), and by Lachmann[, Tischendorf, and others] in every case. 
Bornemann suggested ^ that the word should be written i^e 
when it is used as a true imperative and followed by an accusa- 
tive (as in Eom. xi. 22), tSe when it is a mere exclamation. But 
it is preferable to follow the ancient grammarians. 

(5) Numerals compounded with eVo?, according to some 
ancient grammarians (Th. M. p. 859, Moschopul. in Sched.), are 
paroxytone when they are predicated of time, and oxy tone in all 
other cases. According to this we should have reaaapaKovra- 
eTT)^ ^povo^ in A. vii. 23, TeaaapaKovraerr) y^povov in A. xiii. 18; 
but in Ptom. iv. 1 9, kKaTovTaeTi]^? In the MSS., however, this 
distinction is not observed, and the rule is altogether doubtful 
(see Lob. p. 406) : Ammonius (p. 136) exactly reverses it, see 
Bremi on ^schin. Ctesipli. 369 (ed. Goth.).^ 

(c) Krjpv^ and cj^olvl^ are by some written Krjpv^ and (J)olvl^,^ 
on the ground that, according to some ancient grammarians, the 
V and c in the nomin. sing, were pronounced short (Bekker, 
Anecd. Ill 1429). This rule is rejected by Hermann (Soph. 
(Ed. B. p. 145), as contrary to all analogy. It is a question, 
however, whether we should not for later Greek follow the 
grammarians, and write fcrjpv^, cj^ocvt^ (see Buttm. I. 167) : 
this Lachmann has done.^ 

(d) For TToO?, which is found in most of the older editions 
of the N. T., Knapp introduced ttoi;?, because the penult, of 
the genitive ttoSo^ is short: see Lob. Phryn. p. 765, Paral. 
p. 93. 

(e) Griesbach and others wrongly write XalXa'y^r : it must be 
XoiXaylr, since the a is short. Similarly, ^Xt-v/r^? is adopted by 
Schulz (though not invariably) and by Lachmann, because the 
vowel in the first syllable is long by nature and not by position, 
just as in Xrj'xjn^; : so also KXl/ia, Kpt/xa, '^pca/xa, /xiyfjua, -vlru^o? 
(comp. Pteisig, Be consir. antistr. p. 20, Lob. Paral. p. 418), 

^ Itosenmüller, Exec). Repert. II. 267. 
2 Comp. Jacobs, Anthol. HI. ]>]). 2.51, 253. 

^ [Tischendorf accentuates on tlic penult, in every instance ; Tregelles and 
"Westcott and Hort on the last sylla})]('.] 

* See Scha'fer, (Jnom. p. 215 st[., and on Sopli. PMloct. 562 : comp. Ellendt, 
Lc/x,. Soph. I. 956 sq. 

* [Tisch, now writcts «r'^i>| (following MS. authority), sec his note on 1 Tim. 
ii. 7 (ed. 7) ; also «pa/w^, Pa. xci. 13. See Lidd. and Scott, s. vv.J 


o-TuXo? (Lidd. and Scott s. v.), (/Stx/rt? and) pLyjrav L. iv. 35. It is 
however rightly remarked by Fritzsche {Jiom. I. 107) that, as 
we kuow from ancient grammarians ^ that a penultimate which 
was long in Attic Avas often shortened in later Greek, it is not 
so certain that we are justified in introducing the Attic accentu- 
ation into the JST.T.^ No editor has changed the regular OprjaKo^ 
into dpr^cTKo^, though the latter is found in some MSS. ; see 
Bengel, Appar. Grit. Ja. i. 26.^ 

(/) As the termination ai is considered short in reference to 
accentuation (Buttm. I. 54, Jelf 46), we must write dvfiLaaat 
L. i. 9, and Krjpv^at L. iv. 19, A. x. 42, for dufiidaat and Krjpv^ai, 
as the words are still written by Knapp : comp. Poppo, Thuc. 
II. i. 151, Bornem. ScJiol. p. 4. 'Earavao, A. xii. 14 (Griesb., 
Knapp), is wrong, as the a is short. In Mk. v. 4 avvreTplcpOai, 
is already placed in the text. 

(g) In older editions (and in Knapp' s) ipiOeia is written 
ipideca : as the word is derived from iptOevetv, it is necessarily 
paroxytone (Buttm. I. 141, II. 401, Jelf öö). But for the same 
reason we must write apeaKela : as the word is derived from 
apea/cevetv, not from apeaKecv, dpeaKeca (Lachmann, and with 
him Tischendorf [in earlier editions]) is incorrect. , 

(h) Krtcrrfj, 1 P. iv. 19 (Knapp, Griesb.), has already been 
changed by Lachmann into KTicrrr), in accordance with the very 

^ Lob. Phryn. p. 107 : comp. Dindorf, Prcef. ad Aristoph. Acliarn. p. 15. 

2 [Lipsius {Gr. Unt. pp. 31-46) examines most of these words and many- 
others of a similar kind which occur in the LXX, dividing them into two classes, 
as the a, /, or v, is or is not long by position. He shows that in the N. T. öxl^i;, 
fiiy/u.a, ;^pi<rju.x, xnpvlai, are to be preferred. " Lobeck (Paral. p. 400 sqq.) proves 
that it is not always safe to infer the quantity of derivatives from that of the 
root, and collects passages from the old grammarians which teach that 
the doubtful vowels were shortened before double consonants, especially 
before (to-, X, I, 4'. It is also very conceivable that the pronunciation would 
vary at different periods, and that the natural quantity of the vowels might 
possibly be retained in older Attic, whilst in later Greek the tendency might be 
towards shortening the doubtful vowels where they were long by position." 
Lipsius also receives (for the N. T.) xpZ/xa, x/vov, ^Ttkos, ittCxos. Tisch, writes 

^X/y^tS, xpi'f/.x, klvisv, IXKUfTKi (Jo. XXi. 6), fuyfj^a,, y^plfffx,«.^ (TtIXo;, ittvXos, x,npvt,a.i, 

'^"XO'i usually following MS. authority specified in his notes (in ed. 7). In 
all these words, and also in <rvvTiTp/(p^cc, (Mk. v. 4), Westcott and Hort reject^ the 
circumflex accent. For a good defence of }tptf/.a (in later Greek) see Cobet, N. T. 
Vatic, p. xlix. sqq., see also Vaughan on Rom. ii. 2 ; on (ttIxo;, see Ellicott on 
E. V. 27 ; on ffrCxos, Lightfoot on G. ii. 9. The quantity of the v in kC-ttu is 
disputed, Buttmann giving v (Irr. V. s. v.), Lobeck (Paral. p. 414) «; but^a.i, 6cva.K'j-4'0ii, are generally received in the N. T. Treg. writes erxuXa 
L. xi. 22, and awrplßov L. ix. 39 ; some editors still write xpäZ^ov G. iv. 6.] 

^ [Tischendorf writes hn^Ko; (see his note, ed. 7) ; also AVestcott and 


clear analogy presented by yvcoo-rrj^;, KkdcrTri^, k.tX. Schott 
and Wahl retain Kriarfj, though the true accentuation was 
long ago advocated by Bengel (Appar. p. 442). 

(i) On /jLtadcoTo^; see Schsef. Demostli. II. 88. ^dyo^, Mt. xi. 
19, L. vii. 34, is paroxytone in the N". T., — and not in the N. T. 
only, see Lob. Phryn. p. 434. Analogy would lead us to expect 
(^«709: see Lob. Paral. p. 135, where Fritzsche's opinion^ 
{Mark p. 790) is rejected. 

(k) That the 1 aor. imper. of elTTeiv (A. xxviii. 26) should be 
written elirov, not elirov, is maintained by Lobeck {Phryn. p. 
348) and Buttmann {Exc. 1. ad. Plat. Menon): but the counter- 
arguments of Wex {Jahrl. für Pliilol. VI. 169) deserve 
consideration. The accentuation elirov can only be claimed 
for Attic Greek : in favour of dirov in the Greek Bible we 
have the express testimony of Charax (see Buttmann Z.c), 
who calls this accentuation Syracusan.^ Eecent editors have 
adopted elirov. see further Bornem. Act. p. 234 sq. 

(/) Personal names which were originally oxytone adjectives 
or appellatives throw back the accent, for the sake of distinction.^ 
Thus Tv'^iKO'^ not TvyiKo^, ^FtiralveTO'^ not 'EiraLvero^ (Lob. Pa- 
7xd. p. 481), ^i\r)To<; not <^iXr]T6<; (see Bengel, App. Crit. 2 Tim. 
ii. 17)," EpaaTo<^ not ^EpaaT6<;, B\daro<; not BXaö-ro?, Kapiro^ 
not Kapiro^, Xwcrdev7]<^ (like Arj/jboaOevrj^;), and jdL0Tpe(f)7]<; 
3 Jo. 9. Similarly Tl/jlcov instead of Tifxcov, 'Ovrjalcpopo^ for 
'Ov7)aL(j)6po<;, Evfi6V7]<i for Evfi6vy<;. ^Tpuevaio^, however, re- 
mains unaltered, as in general it is not customary to throw the 
accent forward in proper names ; hence also the proparoxytones 
— as Tp6<f)ipLo^, 'AavyKptTo^; — retain their accent* (Lob. I.e.). 
Yet the forms first mentioned are sometimes found in old 
grammarians and in good MSS. (comp. Tisch. Proleg. Cod. 
Ciarom. p. 22) with their original accent: comp, also ^lX7]t6<;, 
Euseb. Hist Eccl. 6. 21. 2. The name Xjotcrro? has never been 

^ [That the adjective is (p«7«j, the substantive (pocyos. See Lipsius I.e. p. 28.] 

* [Ciiarax informs us that iItov was a Syraeusan form of the second aorist 
imp(;rative, and so Winer considers it (p. 103). See Fritz. Mark p. 517, A. 
Buttm. (Jr. p. 57: coinp. Curtius, Or. Verb, pp. 303, 450 (Trans.). Tisch, 
receives il-rov in Mt. xviii. 17, xxii. 17, Mk. xiii. 4, L. x. 40, xx. 2, xxii. 67, 
Jo. X. 24, A. xxviii. 26. See also Mt. iv. 3, xxiv. 3.] 

3 So also f(ec)f^riiphi(;al names ; see Nobbe, Sch. Plot. II. 17 sq. (Lips. 1842). 

* ["In this case ]troj)er names sometimes become oxytone, as '^wru^,'» Ph. 
iv. 2 (Tisch.) : " ijipsius p. 31. Lünemaun adds Uvjipos, 'Ep/u-oyivt^s, to the former 
list ; eStv^os to this.] 


brought uiulcr the nüv} See in general Heiz, De inclin. ace. p. 
llG,^Sclia'fer, Dion. H. p. 2G5, Funkhiinel, Demosth. Androt. 
p. 108 sq., and especially Lehrs, Dc Aristarcld studiis Homer, p. 
270 sqq. 

On a similar principle the adverbs e7reÄ;6ti^a,e7rtTaSe,L'7re^eÄ:eti^a 
(from eV cKetva, etc.), have undergone a change of accent. 

(???) Indeclinable oriental names have the accent, as a rule, 
on the last syllable ; compare however 'lovSa, Gdfiap, Zopoßd- 
ßeX, 'I(od6a/uL, 'EXed^ap, and the segholate forms 'EXie^ep L. 
iii. 29, 'le^dßeX Eev. ii. 20 (according to good MSS.), MaOov- 
adXa L. iii. 37. This accent is usually the acute, even when the 
vowel is long : as 'Icraa/c, 'lapaijjX, 'laKcoß, Tevvrjadp, Br]6aalSd, 
BijOeaSd, 'Efi/jLaov^, Kacpapvaov/ji. On the other hand, the MSS. 
have Kava, Tedar^iiavi) (though reOarj/iavet, which Lachm. and 
Tisch, prefer, has more authority, see Fritz. 3fark p. 626), also 
BijOcpajT]: comp, also Nivevrj? Words which in the Greek 
Bible are indeclinable and oxytone have their accent drawn 
back in Josephus, who usually prefers inflected forms : e.g. 
'Aßla, in the N. T. Aßid? The oldest MSS. are said to have 
IT^Xaro?, not IlcXdro^, as the word is written by most editors 
and by Lachmann * (also by Cardwell in his edition of Joseph. 
Bell. Jud.) : see Tisch. Proleg. p. 36 (ed. 2). Yet even recent 
editors write, on MS. authority, KopioXdvo^, Plutarch, Coriol. c. 
11, Dion. H. 6. p. 414 (ed. Sylb.); KcKii^vdro^;, Dion. H. 10. p. 
650; TopKovdTo<;, Plut. Fab. Max. c. 9, Dio C. 34. c. 34; 
Ko^pdTo<; (Quadratus), Joseph. Ant. 20. 6 ; 'Ovopdro^;, etc. 
As to TtT09 and Tlro^ see Sintenis, Plut. Vit. IL 190 : on 
$r;Xtf (not ^rjXi^) see Bornem. Act. p. 198.^ 

The accentuation o/zoto?, €pr]fxo<s, €TOifxo<i, pwpos (Boisson. Anecd. 
V. 94), which according to the grammarians (Greg. Cor. pp. 12, 

^ [This rule is usually followed. Lachm. and Tischendorf however write 
Tü^/xoj (A. XX. 4, al.), ^ikTiros (2 Tim. ii. 17); Tischendorf, 'ETaivtroi (Rom. 
xvi. 5), Aio7pi(pr,s (3 Jo. 9). The MS. authority for the change is given by 
Tisch. IL cc. and by Lipsius p. 30. See also Tisch. Proleg. p. 61 (ed. 7).] 

^ [Tisch, reads Ma.6ovffa\a, Tt^irnfietyn', Bn6(pot.yri \ ^t)>ivn (L. xi. 32) is no 
longer in his text.] 

^ [Josephus in Ant. 6. 3. 2 has 'A/3/a (indecl.) as the name of Samuel's 
son ; but for 'A/3/a, Mt. i. 7, he has 'A/3/«5, genit. 'A/3/a.] 

* [In his smaller edition : in the larger he uniformly writes UiXaros. Tischen- 
dorf in ed. 7 has mxaros (see note on Mt. xxvii. 13) ; in ed. 8, ns/Xa-r«?.] 

* [On Titos see Lipsius p. 42 : on *>5>./^ see Tisch, on A. xxiv. 3, Lipsius p. 37 ; 
Lachm. writes *>jX;|. With tItos comp. A/voj, which Tisch, and others read in 
2 Tim. iv. 21, for A7m {Bee, Alf.).] 


20 sqq.) belongs to Ionic and early Attic Greek, and which e.g. 
Bekker follows, is certainly not to be introduced even into Attic 
prose/ still less into the N. T. On the other hand, we must 
invariably write icro? ; comp. Bornem. Luc. p. 4, Fritz. Mark p. 649. 
The N. T. MSS. have uniformly eo-w for eto-w, though they have 
always et?, never es ; vice versa, Thucydides, who mostly uses k, has 
eto-cü 1. 134; see Poppo, I. 212. Kecent editors reject eo-oj in Attic 
prose. ^ As to dTroKvet or dTro/ct'et in Ja. i. 15, see below, § 15. 

On the accentuation of the diminutive t^kvlov as a paroxytone 
see Buttm. II. 441 (Jelf 56); comp, r^xviov Athen. 2. 55, though 
recent editors prefer re^viov both here and in Plat. Rep. 6. 495 d : 
of T€KVLov, T€KVLa Is tlio ouly pait that occurs in the N. T.^ Ilot/xvtov 
(contracted from iroi^iviov) should certainly be preferred to Trotjxviov. 
On a8poTi^<s, ßpaSvTTJ<;, as oxytones, see Buttm. II. 417 : this, accord- 
ing to the grammarians, is the old accentuation, an exception to the 
rule. Lachmann however writes aSpoTrjTt 2 C. viii. 20, but ßpaSvrrJTa 
2 P. iii. 9.^ In later Greek these words seem to have been paroxy- 
tone, according to rule; see Reiz, De incl. ace. p. 109.^ 

On ovKovv and ovkovv, dpa and dpa, see §§ 57 and 61. 

2. It is well known that many words were distinguished 
from one another solely by difference of accent : thus el/juL sum 
and elfXL co (/xvpiot ten thousand and fivploL innumerahle, Buttm. 
I. 278). In such cases the accentuated MSS. and even the 
editors of the N. T. sometimes waver between the tw^o modes of 
accentuation. Thus for fxevei, 1 C. iii. 1 4, the future fievel is 
read by Chrys., Theod., the Vulgate, etc., and this reading has 
been received into the text by Knapp and Lachmann ; comp. 
1 C. V. 13, H. i. 11. For TLve<;, H. iii. 16, several authorities 
have TtVe?, and recent critics have almost unanimously accepted 
this reading. In 1 C. xv. 8 Knapp needlessly changed the article 
tgS into To) (=TLvi), which is the reading of some MSS.: there 
is however but little authority for tw, and it is certainly a cor- 

» Poppo, Thuc. I. 213, II. i. 150, Buttm. I. 55. 

2 Schneider, Plat, Civ. I. Prof. p. 53 : as to the poets, see Elmsley, Eurip. 
3Ied. p. 84 sq. (Lips.). 

^ See Janson, in Jahns Archiv VII. 487 ; and on Totju-viov ib. p. 507. 

* [Similarly Tischendorf, Alford, and others.] 

* [The following words also are variously accentuated hy the N. T. editors : 
Tpupx. A. xxvii. 41, see above (p. 53); Ei'a 1 Tim. ii, 13 Lach., Tisch., eSx Ellic, 
Alf. ; in ]\It. xiii. 30 Tisch, has the less usual ^kt/u.-^ (for ^iff/xn), sec Lob. Paral. 
]». 396; ' Ay.ilrxvdftv'o{ A. xxvii. 6 Tiscli. (following MS. authority), for -?>«?; 
uTohiKTo? 1 Tim. ii. 3 Tisch., al., ü-TrohiKTÖi Kllic, Alf. ; in L. viii, 2ö the 
accentuated MSS. are divided between «►t/^ts^« (Lach., Treg. ) and avrlripa 
(Tisch., Weste.), see Lob. Path. II. 206; ovZ. Mk. xv. 29 Tisch., for ova; 
ffvpris A. xxvii. 17 Lachm., for aüpTn. Griesbach and others have fjLa.pyKp!Ta.i 
Rev. xxi. 21, for -<>«/ ; oa-ipZv E. vi. 14 {Jxripvv).'] 


rection introduced by tliose wlio took offence at the use of tlie 
article. There is as little reason for reading ev tm Trpdyfiarc in 
I Th. iv. 6. In 1 C. x. 19 several recent editors (Knapp and 
]\Ieyer) read, ore elBcoXodvrov rl eariv, rj on elhoiXov tl iariv ; on 
the ground that re is here emphatic (the opposite of ovhev), and 
that an ambiguity is occasioned by the other reading, elhcoXödvröv 
TL eanv (Lachm.), since this might be rendered, " that any 
offering to an idol exists," — that there is such a thing as an 
offering to an idol. But even if we grant that Meyer's is 
certainly the true interpretation, the ordinary accentuation need 
not be changed ; for with it we may translate, " that an offer- 
ing to an idol is anything," — in reality, and not in appearance 
merely.^ In Jo. vii. 34, 36, critics are still divided between 
oirov elfil iyco, and ottov el/Jit cyo) (the reading of several 
Fathers and versions); and in A. xix. 38 almost all recent 
editions have dyopacoi (an adjective, in the sense judicial) 
instead of dyopacoc. In regard to the former passage, John's 
ordinary usage (comp. xii. 26, xiv. 3, xvii. 24) is sufficient 
proof tliat elfiL is to be preferred : ^ in the latter dyopaioi 
is probably correct, if we follow Suidas, and in Ammon. p. 4 
read (with Kulencamp), dy6paco<; /Jbkv yap iariv r] rj/iipa, 
dyopaLo<; Se 6 'Epixrj<^ 6 eirl Trj^ äyopä<;. Comp. Lob. Paral. 
p. 340.^ 

In Rom. i. 30 some write deoarvyei^, maintaining that the 
word is here used in an active sense, and that Oeoarvyel^ is 
passive, Deo exosi. But the analogy of such adjectives as 
fjL7)Tp6fCTovo<; and ixrjTpoKTovo^ (Buttm. II. 482, Jelf 50) proves 
nothing for adjectives in ?;? ; and Suidas says expressly that 
OeocTTvyel^ means both ol viro Oeov fiio-ov/xevoc and ol Oeov 
fit(TovuT€<;, though he distinguishes between Oeoficat]^ and 
d€OfjLL(Tr]<i in signification. Hence OeoaTvyel^, which alone is 
according to analogy (compound adjectives in 77? being oxytone), 
is the only correct form. As regards the sense, it would seem 
that the active meaning which Suidas gives to the word was 

•^ [That is, the same meaning may be obtained from i'ihuXoivr'nv ti 'iffrtv 
through the emphasis laid on io-nv, as from tl'^uk. rl Io-tiv through the em- 
phasis on Tt : "is anything at all" is practically equivalent to " is (really) 

^ See Lücke in loc, after Knapp, Comm. Isagog. p. 32 sq. 

^ [Tisch, in loc. (ed. 8) remarks that the MSS. do not support the distinction, 
and reads ayopxToi : so "Westcott and Hort. See Lipsius, p. 26.] 


not derived by liim from Greek usage, but was assumed for 
this very passage. The word, it is true, does not often occur, 
but no instance has been found in which a Greek author has 
certainly used it in an active sense : see Fritz, in loc. There 
is however good ground for the distinction between Tpo')(^6^ 
wheel, Ja. iii. 6 (in the text and the accentuated MSS.), and 
T/9o;^o9 course, the reading adopted by Grotius, Hottinger, 
Schulthess, and others ; see Schsef Soph. II. 307. The figure 
rpo')(o<; yeveaeco^ (in conjunction with cf>\oyL^ov(Ta) is neitlier 
incorrect nor, in James, particularly strange ; hence no change 
of accent is required. 

The alterations of accent which have been proposed in other 
passages — as 6/xcüs for o/xws in 1 C xiv. 7, TrpmroTOKO'; for TrpoiToroKO's 
in Col. i. 15 (see Meyer), and even cfiooTwv for «^torwv in Ja, i. 17 
{-rrarrip tu)v <}>.) — originated either in dogmatic prepossessions or in 
ignorance of the language. The last is altogether absurd. 

3. It is still a disputed question whether in prose (for to 
poetry peculiar considerations apply, comp. e.g. Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. I. 476) the pronoun should be joined as an enclitic to a 
preposition, where no emphasis is intended ; that is, whether we 
should write irapd aov, ev pboi, et? jxe, rather than irapa crov, 
ev ifMol, K.T.X. In the editions of the N". T. (Lachmann's in- 
cluded), as in those of Greek authors in general, we regularly 
find TTpo? pue, 7rp6<; ere, but iv aoi, ev epbol, eirl ere, eU ifjue, eV 
e'/Lte, etc. It is only in the case of irpo^ pue, cre, that variants are 
noted, the orthotoned pronouns being sometimes found (L. i. 43, 
A. xxii. 8, 13, xxiii. 22,xxiv. 19) in B and other MSS., mostly 
at the end of a sentence or clause : see Bornem. on A. xxiv. 19. 
Partly on the authority of ancient grammarians, and partly for 
the reason assigned by Hermann (De em. gr. Grcec. p. 75 sq.), 
that in such combinations the pronoun is the principal word, one 
must be disposed to decide generally in favour of retaining the 
accent of the pronoun: irpo'; pue, however, is defended by a portion 
of the grammarians, and is often found in MSS. See Buttm. I. 
285 sq., Jacobs, Anth. Pal. I. Frcef. p. 32, Matth. Eurip. Or. 
384 and Sprachl. 29, Kriig. p. 82, also Ellendt, Arrimi I. 199. 
Yet Keisig {Conj, in Aridoph. p. 56) and Bornemann (Xen. 
Conv. p. 163) maintain the other view; and it must be confessed 
that — besides the case of irpo'^ pue — tlie enclitic forms are often 
found in good MSS. of Greek authors. The accent must of 


course be retained when the pronoun is emphatic : thus Knapp 
and Schulz correctly write tl 7rpo<i ae in Jo. xxi. 22.^ 

As regards the inclination of the accent, the ordinary rules of 
the grammarians are in general observed in editions of the N. T. 
Hence even Fritzsche still writes 6 Trats fxov Mt. viii. 6, i$ v/xiov 
Tti'cs Jo. vi. 64, VTTO TLV(i)V L. Ix. 7 ; not Trats /xov, €$ vfxCjv Ttvi<;, 

vTTo TLvwVf which are defended by Hermann (De emend, gr. Gr. I. 
71, 73). Lachmann 2 introduced the accent in the last two cases, 
and also wrote ttoO cortv Mt. ii. 2, fxir avroiv iariv Mk. ii. 19, but 
left Trats /xou unchanged : he has been followed by Tisch, (ed. 2). 
Compare however the cautious opinion of Buttmann (I. (jb sq.).^ 

Section VII. 


1. In the editions of the N. T. down to that of Griesbach inclu- 
sive, the punctuation was not only wanting in consistency, but 
was also excessive. To make the meaning clearer editors intro- 
duced a profusion of stops, especially commas ; and in doing 
this often intruded on the text their own interpretation of it.^ 
Knapp was the first who bestowed closer attention on the 
subject, and attempted to reduce it to fixed principles. Schulz, 
Lachmann, and Tischendorf (w^ho usually agrees with Lach- 
mann), have followed in the same track,^ but with still greater 
reserve : no one of these, however, has given a general exposi- 
tion of his principles.^ 

^ [Most editors of the N. T. write Tpö? [j^i, at, in ordinary cases. In Tischen- 
dorfs 7th ed. we find regularly Tfo-, i^i, a'l ; but in ed. 8 he retains the accent of 
the pronoun (in this case) only when the pronoun is emphatic (as Mt. iii. 14). 
See further Lipsius pp. 59-67, Jelf 6-4, Don. p. 44.] 

* Yet Lachm. writes et/ t/vwv A, xxvii. 44, iav T/v&;y Jo. xx. 23. 

^ [This subject is examined by Lipsius in detail, as regards the usage of 
the LXX and the N. T. The principal departure from the ordinary rules is in 
the case of two enclitics, the first of which has one syllable, the second two ; 
here, in editions of the LXX and the N. T., the second enclitic almost always 
retains its accent, as itr^vponpo; /utov ivtIv. Tischendorf usually follows this rule. 
He also writes (on MS. authority) üy^xro f/,ou ris, not il4'- f*»^ ns, and (once, 
Mk. xiv. 14) Tou la-riK See his Froleg. p. 62 (ed. 7). Lipsius pp. 49-59, Jelf 
64, Don. p. 43 sq. On " interpunctio cum enclisi conjuncta," see Lobeck, 
Path. II. 321-332, Lipsius p. 55 sq.] 

* Comp, especially Poppo in the Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1826, I. 506 sqq., and 
Matth. 59. 

* Comp, also Buttm. I. 68, Schleierm. Hermen, p. 76. 

^ Among editors of Greek authors, I. Bekker has begun to punctuate with 
greater moderation and consistency, "W. Dindorf with still more reserve ; both 
however seem to carry the exclusion of the comma too far. 

^ Rinck has proposed {Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 554 sq.) that in punctuation 


There is a scientific necessity for punctuation, since any 
representation of oral discourse would manifestly be incomplete 
without it. It was however originally devised for a practical 
purpose — to aid the reader, especially in reading aloud, by 
markin^^ the various pauses for the voice. And such its main 
object must still be, — to enable the reader to perceive at once 
what words are to be connected together, and, so far, to guide 
him to the correct perception of the meaning.-^ Punctuation 
must therefore be founded on an examination of the logical, or 
rather (since the thought is already clothed in language) of 
the grammatical and rhetorical relations of the words to one 
another. Hence it would be asking too much to require that 
an editor should in no degree whatever indicate his own inter- 
pretation of the passage by the punctuation, since he has to 
insert not merely commas but also the colon and the note of 

With respect to the proper use of the colon or of the full stop 
in the N". T. text there can scarcely be any doubt. Lachmann 
and Tischendorf ^ indeed have dropped the colon before a direct 
quotation, preferring to indicate the commencement of the 
quotation by a capital letter; but we can see no sufficient 
reason for this innovation. 

There is much less uniformity in the use of the comma. So 
much as this is clear — that only a sentence which is itself gram- 
matically complete,^ and which also stands in close connexion 
with another sentence, should be marked off by a comma ; and 
that the comma was, strictly speaking, invented for this pur- 
pose. But a grammatically complete sentence comprehends not 
merely subject, predicate, and copula (each of which three ele- 
ments may be either expressed or understood), but also all qua- 
lifying words which are introduced into the sentence to define 

we should return to the ])rinciples of the ancient Greek grammarians (Villoison, 
Aimed. II. 138 sqq.). This however would be hardly practicable. 

1 Buttmann, loc. cit. 

2 [In his 8th ed. Tisch, has returned to the old practice.] 

^ The grammatical sentence will, as a rule, coincide witli the logical, but 
not always. In L. xii. 17, Jo. vi. 29 (see p. 65), for example, there are logi- 
cally two sentences, but by means of the relative the second is incorporated in 
the first, so that the two form grammatically one whole. This is the case in 
every instance of brevilo((uence, where two sentences are contracted into one. 

Also in 1 Tim. vi. 3, t'l rn %Tipohihx(rxa.Xu kou fjt,ri 'Tpoiip^iTa.t vyioc'ivoviri koyois, 

we have two logical pro[)ositions, but in this construction the two form one 
grammatical sentence : see below, p. 66. 


these main elements more precisely,and without which the sense 
would be imperfect. Hence Griesbach, for instance, was wrong 
in separating the verb from its subject by a comma whenever the 
subject was accompanied by a participle, or consisted of a par- 
ticiple \vith its adjuncts; as in Mk. vii. 8, x. 49, Eom. viii. 5, 
1 Jo. ii. 4, iii. 15. The comma is also wrongly inserted in 
1 Th. iv. 9, Trepl Be r?}? <pi\aheX(f)La<^, ou '^pelav e^ere ypdcpetv 
vfjuv' Mt. vi. 16, pbT) fyiveaOe, w<;7r€p ol viroKpirai (for firj ylv. 
by itself gives no sense at all), Mt. v. 32, o? av aTroXvarj ttjv 
yvvaiKa avTov, irapeKTO^ \6you 7ropv6ia<; (the last Avords contain 
the most essential part of the statement), Mt. xxii. 3, koI 
aireareCke tov<; BovXov<; avrov, KaXecraL tov<; K€K\r]ixevov^' 1 Th. 
iii. 9, TLva yap evyapLcrTLav hwafieöa tw Oew ävrairohovvai Trepl 
v/jlojv, iirl irdar) rfj X^P^ ^ ^- ^^^- ^> koKov dvOpcoTTO), yvvaLKO^ 
[17] aiTTeaOai' A. v. 2 [?],Ä:at evoacjylcraTO cltto t?)? Ti/jbr]<;,avvecSvL'rj(i 
Kol Tr}<; yvvaiKOf;. But the notion of a complete sentence is still 
more comprehensive. Even a relative clause must be con- 
sidered a part of the preceding sentence, when the relative 
(whether pronoun or adverb) includes the demonstrative, as 
Jo. vi. 29, Iva Tnareva'qTe et? ou direareiXev eKelvo<;' Mt. xxiv. 
44, y ov BoKelre iopa 6 vlo<; tov dvOpwiTov ep^^rac L. xii. 17, 
OTL ovK e^^ct) irov avvd^co rou? Kap7rov<; fiov ; or when there is an 
attraction of the relative, as L. ii. 20, eVl iraacv ohrjKovaav ; ^ 
or w^hen the relative clause is so necessary a complement to the 
antecedent that the sense is not complete unless both are taken 
together, as L. xii. 8, Tra? o? av ofioXoyrjaj]' Mt. xiii. 44, irdvra 
oaa eyet ; or when the preposition is not repeated before the 
relative, as A. xiii. 39, diro irdvrwv atv ovk r^BwrjOr^re k.t.X., 
L. i. 25.^ Also when the subject, the predicate, or the copula 
of a sentence is composed of several w^ords joined by Kai 
(or ouSe), we must take all these words together, and regard 
them as one whole grammatically, though, logically considered, 
there are really several sentences : Mk. xiv. 22, Xaßcov 6 'Irjaov^ 
aprov evXoy^aa^ eKXacre koI eSco/cev avrol';' Jo. vi. 24:/Ir]aov^ 
OVK eanv eKei ovBe ol fiaOijTal avrov' Mt. xiii. 6, rjXCov dvareL- 
XavTo<; eKavfiaTLaOr) Kal Blol to firj ey^iv pl^av e^TjpdvOrj (so 
Lachm. correctly), 1 Tim. vi. 3, Mt. vi. 26. — (The case is 

' Compare Schaef. Demosth. II. 657. 

^ It would be going too far to omit the comma "before eve'n/ relative sentence, 
as is done by Bekker, for instance, in his edition of Plato. 


different in Mk. xiv. 2 7, Trard^co tov Trocfieua, Kai hiacTKopinaOr)- 
aerac ra irpaßara' Mt. vii. 7, alretTe, Kai hoOrjaerai vfuv : 
here two complete sentences are connected by Kal, and there- 
fore the comma cannot be omitted. When ij separates two 
sentences, the comma is always required before it.) 

The comma must also be omitted between such sentences as 
aif fjL6vo<; irapoiKel'^ 'lepovcr. Kal ovk 6<yv(o<; k.t.X. (L. xxiv. 18), 
because they are so closely connected that they must be read 
without a pause, and only when thus joined together convey the 
proper sense. In Mk. xv. 25 also we must write '^v copa rplrr] 
Kal ecrraypwaav avrov, and in Mt. viii. 8, ovk elfu lKavo<^ iva 
fjLov vTTo Tr]v (jTeyiqv eUek6r)<;, without any break. Lastly, the 
comma may be omitted before aXKa when the following sen- 
tence is incomplete, and therefore has its roots, so to speak, iu 
what has gone before : thus Eom. viii. 9, u/xet? Se ovk icrre iv 
aapKi alOC iv irvevixart' and in ver. 4, rol'^ purj Kara adpKa 
iTepiiraTovaLv aXXa Kara Trvevfia (here Fritzsche retains the 

2. On the other hand, we must not bring too much into a 
sentence grammatically complete, and thus omit commas when 
they are really necessary. 

(a) The vocative is never a constituent part of the sentence 
"with which it is connected, but it is to be regarded as a sort of 
announcement of it ; especially when the verb of the sentence is 
in the 1st or 3rd person. Hence the comma is required in Jo. 
ix. 2, paßßl, Ti? rjjJLapTev' Mk. xiv. 36, dßßä 6 irarrip, iravra 
Sward aoi' 2 P. iii. 1, L. xv. 18, xviii. 11, al. 

(h) A comma is correctly inserted after a word which is the 
subject both of a sentence immediately following it and begin- 
ning with a conjunction, and also of the principal sentence ; 
as Jo. vii. 31, o X/j^crro?, orav eXOrj, . . . irocrjaei. Lach- 
mann's practice is different. 

(c) If a grammatically complete sentence is followed by a 
supplementary statement, which might properly form a sentence 
of itself, the two must be separated by a comma : thus Eom. 
xii. 1 , TrapuKaXci) v/id^ Trapaarrjaai, rd (Tüy/jLara v. 6.^. . . . rw 
6e(v, ryv \oyLKr)v Xarpelav (tliat is, 7]Ti(; earlv r) \oy. X<xt.), 1 Tim. 
ii. G, Sov<; eavrov dvTiXvrpov vTrepirdurcov, ro fxapTvpiov Kaupol^ 
iSi0L<;. So also in the case of participles, &c. : Col. ii. 2, tW 
irapaKX. al Kaphiau avTwv, avfißißaaOevre^; iv dydirrj- Jo. ix. 13, 


äyouacv avrbv TT/ao? tou? (^apiaalov^, ruv irore TU(f)\oi>' Itoin. 
viii. 4, Iva to hiKalwfxa rov vofiov irXripcjuOf] ev yficp, toI<^ /xr] 
Kara adpKa TrepiTrarovacv' ver. 20, K. i. 12. 

(d) If a twofold construction is used in what is (logically) a 
single sentence, — as when an anacoluthon occurs, — the parts 
must be separated by a comma in w-riting, and in reading by a 
pause ; as in Jo. xv. 2, irau KXijfia ev €/jloI /jlt] (pepov Kapirov, 
alpei avTo. By the addition of avro the words ttolv kX. . . . 
/capTToi/ become a casus pendens, which is merely placed in front 
of the sentence ; and hence no one w^ould read the words with- 
out a pause. Similarly in Eev. iii. 12, o vlkwv, iroirjaco avrov 
arvXov k.t.X., H. ix. 23,^ avajKr} ra fiev vTroSely/iara tcou ev 
TOL<s ovpavoh, TovTot<; KaOapi^eaOaL. It is obvious tliat, when 
complete sentences are introduced, they must be marked off by 
commas from the principal sentence, as L. ix. 28, A. v. 7, al. 
[see § 62. 2.] 

(e) If in a sentence several words which stand in the same 
relation are joined to one another dcrvvherw^ (without /cat), or 
merely enumerated in succession, they must be separated from 
one another by commas : 1 P. v. 10, avrof; KarapTLaec, arrjpi^ec, 
aOevuLxret, öefieXtüXjei' L. xiii. 14, aTroKpideU Se 6 dp^icruvdycoyo(; , 
ayavaKTMV ore ... 6 'Irjaov^;, eXeye. 

If the use of the comma in all these cases is correct, one might 
wish that we had a subordinate stop — a half comma— that those 
words in a continuous grammatical sentence which a reader is in 
danger of connecting together, though they certainly do not form (so 
to speak) one grammatical group, might be exhibited to the eye as 
unconnected. Thus in L. xvi. 10, 6 irLa-To? iv IXa^^ia-Toi koI iv ttoAXw 
TTtcrros ecTTt, any reader may go wrong, because «at naturally leads 
him to expect a second word parallel to Trtcrro? ev iXax^o-Tio. The 
same may be said of the following i^assages : Rom. iv. 14, et yap 
61 Ik vofjLov KXrjpovojxoL' Ja. V. 12, ■^ro) Se v/Xijjv rb vat vat Kat to ov 
ov' 1 C. XV. 47, 6 TrpüJTO? avOpu)7ro<5 ck y^? ^otKOS' H. V. 12, 6<i)€i- 
A.0VT6S ctvat StSao-KaXot Sto, rov ■)(^p6vov ttolXlv ^petW e^^rc rov StSa- 
(rK€Lv v/xas' Jo. V. 5, rjv tl<s av^pooTros eK€t rpiaKovra kol oktoj err) 
€)((iov ev TYj acr^evetV Kom. iii. 9, rt ovv ; Trpoe^^ofxeOa ; ov ttoivtcüs 
(ov, TravTw?). A half comma would make all clear. As however 
no such stop exists, we might employ in its stead an ordinary comma, 
just as it is used in writing and print to distinguish 6,tl from 
on. But recent editors use no stop at all in such cases, and this 
is perhaps the most prudent course. ^ 

' [This is probably misplaced, and should come in below, with Rom. iv. 14, etc.] 
^ [Lipsius (pp. 83-108) gives a detailed analysis of Lachmanu's system of 


3. It is in many respects desirable that an editor's view of 
a passage should not be introduced into the text by means of 
punctuation. This is easily avoided in cases where it is not 
necessary to punctuate at all, as in Eom. i. 1 7, vii. 2 1, Mt. xi. 11. 
There are passages, however, where a stop — full stop, colon, 
comma, or note of interrogation — is absolutely necessary, and 
yet cannot be introduced without the adoption of some parti- 
cular interpretation. In Jo. vii. 21, 22, for instance, every 
editor must decide whether he will wYite,^^Ev epyou lirolrjaa koI 
TTaz^re? Oavfid^ere' 8ia tovto Mo)cr7j<; SeBcoKev vpiiv ireptTOfjLTJv 
k.tX. (with Chrysostom, Cyril, Euthymius Zigabenus, al.), or 
'^Ev epyov . . . Oav/jbd^ere Sid tovto. Mcocr^? k.tX., with Theo- 
phylact and nearly all modern editors and commentators. The 
former punctuation might still be defended (not indeed on 
the ground that, as Schulz has shown, Scd tovto in John 
usually begins, but never ends a sentence, — but) if the con- 
nexion were understood thus : " I have done one work and ye 
all wonder : therefore (be it known to you) Moses has given 
you etc." That is : "I will put an end to your wonder : you 
yourselves perform circumcision on the Sabbath according to 
the law of Moses. If then this ceremony, which immediately 
affects only one part of the body, is not a violation of the 
Sabbath, surely the work of healing, which extends to the whole 
man, is also allowed." I confess, however, that (as also Lücke 
has shown) the explanation of the passage is far simpler if the 
ordinary punctuation is retained.^ Heb. xi. 1 might be punctu- 
ated, eo-rt Be 7r/ö-Tt9, eXiTL^o/jbevcov viroaTaaL'^ k.t.X. : the emphasis 
would thus fall on eVrt, and the existence of itlo-tl^ of such a 
kind as the words in apposition describe would be indicated as 
an historical fact. I now think, however, that it is more appro- 
priate to omit the comma, so that the words contain a definition 
of faith, — the accuracy of which definition is illustrated by the 

punctuation, marking instances in which Tischendorfs practice is different. In 
his 7th cd. Tisch, punctuates more sparingly tlian before : *'quod raritati stu- 
debanuis, id earn commendationem liabet, (piod quo antiqnioros c(kl. sunt, eo 
rarior interpunctio est." {Prolan, p. 62.) On the traces of punctuation in the 
ohler MSH., see Lipsius ])]). 07-76.] 

' [Of recent coniirieutators, Lutliardt, Meyer, and Alford join ^/a tovto to ver. 
22, but do not assuuie an elb'psis. On the other sid(!, the iuiglish reader may be 
referred to Stier, Words of Iht Lord Jesus, V. 259 ; Olshausen, Comm. III. 480, 
and the notes of Tliohick, Ilcjngstcnberg, and Wordsworth. Tisch, (ed. 8) omits 
dice. TOVTO, on very slender authorit3\ Westcott and Ilort join the words to ver. 
22. See Westcott's note in loc] 


historical examples that follow : see Bleek in loc. In punctu- 
ating Jo. xiv. 30, 31, commentators vary between ev ifiol ovk 
€^€i ovSiv, aXX* 7va . . . ttolcj. eyetpeaOe k.t.X., and ovhev uXk 
'iva . . . iTOiw, i'yeipeaOe k.t.X. It is impossible to avoid varia- 
tions of this kind, if the N. T. text is punctuated at all. Compare 
further Eom. iii. 9, v. 16, vi. 21, viii. 33, ix. 5, xi. 31, 1 C. i. 13, 
vi. 4, xvi. 3, A. v. 35 (see Kühnöl), H. iii. 2, Ja. ii. 1, 4, 18, 
V. 3, 4. 

The same reluctance to engage the reader in favour of any par- 
ticular interpretation of the text is probably the main cause which 
has led to the entire disuse of the parenthesis (once so much abused) 
on the part of some recent editors, e.g. Tischendorf. It was retained 
by Lachmann. See below, § 62. 

Section YIII. 
unusual foems ix the fiest and second declensions. 

1. Masculine proper names in a? of the 1st decl. — mostly 
oriental, but formed in accordance with a familiar Greek ana- 
logy — always make the genit. sing, in a : 'Icoavva L. iii. 2 7, 
^I(üva Mt. xii. 39, Jo. i. 43, aL, KXcoTra Jo. xix. 25, XT€(f)avä 1 
C. i. 16, xvi. 15, ^K€va A. xix. 14, K7](l)ä 1 C. i. 12, Xarava 
Mk. i. 13, 2 Th. ii. 9, "Eiracppä Col. i. 7 : ^ [comp, fia/icovä L. 
xvi. 9]. 

Those also which end in unaccented a? make the genitive in 
a; as Kala<^a Jo. xviii. 13, "Avva L. iii. 2, 'Apera 2 C. xi. 32 
(Joseph. Ant 17. 3. 2, 18. 5. 1), Bapvdßa G. ii. 1, CoL iv. 10, 
^ A'^piizira'^ A. xxv. 23, comp. Joseph. Ant. 16. 2. 3, 16. 6. 7, 
20. 7. 1, al {XlXa Joseph. Vit 17, Mardeia Act Apocr. p. 133), 
^lovBa often. — The same forms are not unfrequently used by 
Attic writers in proper names ; as MaaKa Xen. An. 1. 5. 4, 
Fcoßpva Xen. Cyr. 5. 2. 14, Kofidra Theocr. 5. 150, aL: comp. 
Krug. p. 42 ' (Jelf 79, Don. p. 89), and on Boppa (L. xiii. 29, 
Rev. xxi. 13), in particular, Buttm. I. 147, 199, Bekker, ^?ic'cr/. 
III. 1186. 

^ So ©&;^ä in Act. Thorn., Koux.'i. Euseb. H. E. 3. 24, 'E/j^5 ih. 3. 3. 

^ On the other hand, we find \\ypl'r'7rov occasionally in Josephus {Ant. 18. 7. 
1 and 2, 18. 8. 8, al.) and Euseb. H. E. 2. 19. In the same way the ]!t[SS. of 
Xenophon vary between Tußpvov and Tußpva. 

^ Georgi, Hier. I. 156, Ellendt on Arrian, Al. I. 83, Y. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 


The genitive of nouns in a? pure ends in ov in the N. T., as 
usually in Attic writers (e.g. Alveia^;) ;^ as 'AvBpea<; Mk. i. 29, 
Jo. i. 45 (Josei^KAnt. 12. 2. 3,AcLApocr. pp. 158, 159), 'H\ta<; 
L. i. 17 [?], iv. 25, 'Haata^ Mt. iii. 3, xiii. 14, A. xxviii. 25, al, 
'lepe/jLia^ Mt. ii. 1 7, xxvii. 9, Za^apLa<^ Mt. xxiii. 35, L. i. 40, al., 
AvaavLa<; L. iii. 1, Bapa'^ia^ Mt. xxiii. 35. Similarly 'Ovl-a^ 
'OV (so always in Josephus), Twßl-a^ -ov, Geo. Syncell. Chro- 
nogr. p. 164, though the usual genitive is Twßla? 

Several names of places that might be declined as nouns of 
the 1st decl. are in the N. T. indecHnable : as Kava (dat. Jo. ii. 1, 

11, accus. Jo. iv. 46), ^-qöcrdi^a, B77(90ayrJ, VoXyoOa, "Pafxa.^ BrjOaßapa, 

Jo. i. 28, must not be classed with these, for Origen treats it as 
a neuter plural : in this passage recent editors read iv B-qOavta. 
AvSSa is certainly inflected as a fern. sing, in A. ix. 38 (Av88>^s) ; 
but in verses 32, 35, we find Av8Sa as a neut. accus, in good 


The compounds in apxo<;^ usually exchange this ending for apxq's 
(of the 1st decl.) in the N. T. and in later Greek :^ as TraTpidpxn? 
H. vii. 4, plur. A. vii. 8, 9 (1 Chr. xxvii. 22); reTpdpxn? Mt. xiv. 1, L. 
iii. 19, ix. 7 (Joseph. AnL 18. 7. 1, rerpdpxaL Euseb. E. E. 1. 7. 4); 
TToXiTapxTj's A. xvii. 6 ; iBvdpxq^ 2 0. xi. 32 (1 Mace. xiv. 47, iOvdpxr] 
1 Mace. XV. 1, 2, iOvdpxrjv Joseph. A7it. 17. 11. 4, iOvdpxa<; Eus. 
Const. 1. 8); from da-idpxyj^, dcnapxoiv A. xix. 31 (daidpxrjv Euseb. 
ff. E. 4. 15. 11, Asiarcha, Cod. Theodos. 15. 92) ; cVarovrap^^s A. x. 
1, 22, xxi. 32, xxii. 26 (Joseph. B. J. 3. 6. 2), kKaTovrdpxQ A. xxiv. 
23, xxvii. 31, Mt. viii. 13, — where however a few MSS. have 

^ Lobeck, Proleg. Pathol, p. 487 sqq. 

^ See in general Georg. ChceroLosci Diet, in Theocl. Can. (ed. Gaisf.), I. 42. 
3 [Bn^iraiddv may be the accus, of 4a in Mk. vi. 45, viii. 22, but is vocative in 
Mt. xi. 21. In Mt, xxvii. 33 we find us ToXyoda., but in Mk. xv. 22 (jirobably) 

l-r) ToXyo6a,v. ] 

* See Winer, RWB. II. 30. ['' Avh'hx is feminine in 1 Mace, and in Pliny: 
Josephus uses both modes of inflexion." RWB. I.e. In A. ix. 38 we must read 
^.vl'hxs. — Compare Tof^oppuv Mt. x. 15 (Gen. xiii. 10), Tojuippccs 2 V. ii. 6 (Gen. 
xiv, 2); AvffTpav A. xiv. 6, al., AvffTpoi; A. xiv. 8, al. ; evan'tpuv A. xvi. 14, 
^vciTupxv Rev. i. 11 (in good MSS.). — In the case of Mxpfa, Mecpioi/u., the variation 
between the inflected and the non-inflected forms is very perplexing.] 

^ It is true the MSS. of the older Greek writers also vary between up^os and 
'^PZ^'^j I'JUt recent critics give the i)reference to a/);^«; (comp. Bornem. Xen. Conv. 
I. 4, Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 2. 1, 22, p. 109); this form also agrees best with the 
derivation of these words (from üpp^os). Comp. ToTup^os Mach. Choiij^h. 662 ; 
but ytif/.vKiriKpx*!! must be retained in il^lschin. Tim. I. 23 (ed. Bremi). 

• Tliat ap:i(^r}; was tlic usual termination in the apostolic age also seems a 
legitimate inference from the fact tliat the llomans, in translating those words 
into Latin, used this or a similar form, though it would have been as easy to 
use -arc.kuH. Thus we find Tetrarehes, Hirt. Bell. Al. c. 67, Liv. Epit. 94, 
Horat, Serm. 1, 3. 12, Lucan 7. 227 ; Alnharches, Cic. Attic. 2. 17, Juven. Sat. 
1. 130 ; Toparcha, Spaitian. in Jiadrian. 13 ; Patriarcha, Tertull. de Anivi. c. 7. 
.55, al. : comp. Schaff. JJcmosth. II. 151, At a later period, wo have the testi- 
mony of the Byzantine writers for the preponderance of this form. 


tKaTovTapxio, as in Joseph. B. J. 2. 4. 3 Uarovrapxov is read besides 
kKCLTovTapxW' -^^^ £KaToi/Ta/j;(os occurs aliiiost without any variant in 
Mt. viii. 5, 8, L. vii. 6, A. xxii. 25 : kKaTovTapxov, L. vii. 2, may come 
from iKaTovTiipxr]^ ', SO also may the gen. plur. A. xxiii. 23, if we write 
kKarovrapx'^v for -ap^^wr.^ Lastly, for o-rpaTOTrcSapx?/ ^- xxvni. 16 
(Const. Man. 4412, ai.) the better MSS. have -apx<{>- 1'^^^ following 
additional instances of the form -dpxv'^ ^^J ^^ adduced from the 
Greek Bible and from writers of the first centuries after Christ : 
y€V€(TLdpxr)<s Wis. xiii. 3,2 KVTrpcdpxyj'i 2 Mace. xii. 2, T07rdpxr}s Gen. xli. 
34, Dan. iii. 2, 3, vi. 7, Euseb. H. E. 1. 13. 3, ötacrapx'7? Lucian, 
Pcregr. 11, jx€pdpxrj<; Arrian, Tact. p. 30, cf)aXayydpxr}<i ib. p. 30, 
ctAapx^? ib. p. 50, cAec^avrapxvy? 2 Macc. xiv. 12, 3 Mace. v. 4, 45, 
aXaßdpxr}^ Joseph. Ant. 19. 5. 1, ycvapx^s Lycophr. 1307, Joseph. 
Ant. 1. 13. 4, ra^idpxr]^ Arrian, ^/. 2. 16. 11, Euseb. Const. 4. 63 
(though in 4. 51, 68, he uses ra^tapxos, see Heinich. Index p. 585), 
l\dpxr]<; Arrian, Jl. 1. 12. 11, 2. 7. 5, o-vpidpxr]^ Ad. Apocr. p. 52, 
vofjidpxr]<i Pai^yr. Tanr. p. 24, y€iTovidpxr]<i Boisson. Anecd. V. 73. 
To quote from the Byzantines all the examples of compounds in 
-apxT^s would be an endless work; they occur on almost every page. — 
Of some compounds -apxo'i is the only form which occurs in the N.T. : 
thus we find x'^tapX^^ in all the N. T. passages, 22 in number (on the 
other hand, x^^^i-dpxv^ Arrian, Al. 1. 22. 9, 7. 25. 11, see EUendt, 
Arrian II. 267), and also in the LXX, Ex. xviii. 11,^ 25, Dt. i. 15, 
Num. i. 16, in which passages we also meet with SeKaSapxo? {ScKa- 
Bdpxat Arrian, Tact. p. 98). In the Byzantines, Kcvrapxos Cedren. 1. 
705, 708, vvKT€7rapxo<s Leo Diac. 6. 2, must be looked upon as isolated 
instances of this form. 

We meet with dialectic inflexions of nouns of the 1st decl., in 
o-Tretpvys the Ionic genit. of a-n-dpa, A. xxi. 31, xxvii. 1, and — with 
some variation in the MSS. — A. x. 1 (comp. Arrian, Acies contra 
Alanos pp. 99, 100, 102) : good MSS. also have p-axaipy]^ Rev. xiil 14, 
H. xi. 34, 37, and fiaxatprj Rev. xiii. 10, L. xxii. 49, A. xii. 2 (comp. 
Ex. XV. 9). Compare also '^a-Kcjiuprj A. v. 1 (2a7r<^€tpa Lachm.), and 
(Tvv^ihvirj^ ver. 2, in good MSS.' See Matth. 68. 2.^ 

^ [In the received text -os occurs 15 times, -n; 5; in Tisch, (ed. 7), -os 6 times 
and -»?5 13 ; in ed. 8 Tisch, reads -oj in A. xxii. 25 only, but in some passages 
there is little authority for the reading which he accepts. In the text of West- 
cott and Hort (who receive -«? 4 times, -n; 15), Matthew uses -os in nomin., -»i 
in dative ; Luke (in Gospel and Acts) -n? only, except in accus, sing. (A. xxii. 
25). — For rirpupx,^? we should probably read Tirpttxpx^ii '• so also riTfccapx^^^-^ 

^ [In ed. 7 Winer added x&»/*a^;^«j, Esth. ii. 3.] 

^ [This should be xviii, 21 : li>iäl>a.pxoi occurs in some o/ these passages of the 
LXX, viz. Ex. xviii. 21, 25, Dt. i. 15.] 

* [Tischendorf (ed. 8) receives the n in all these instances ; also TXvf/.f^vpvi L. 
vi. 48, -rp'Jipvi A. xxvii. 30. On the Ionic forms in the N. T. see Cobet, N. T. 
Vatic, pp! xxxiii, Ixxiii sq., xc : A. Buttmann {Gr. p. 11) maintains that these 
should not be called lonisms, as we do not find the norain. -/>»j in the N". T. With 
ffvviitvlni Tisch, compares i'rißißnx.vlns 1 S. xxv. 20, xvvof/.v/t]s Ex. viii. 21, 24 : 
see his Proleg. p. 54 (ed. 7).] 

* [We have Uüpörcs in Jo. xi. 1 : comp. "Aw« IS. i. 2, 5, AÖ^las (Jelf 78. Ohs.).] 


2. In the 2nd declension we find the following forms : — 

(a) 'AttoWco, accus, sing, of '^ttoXXco? (A. xviii. 24) A. xix. 1, 
1 C. iv. 6 [?], instead of ^AttoWcov; comp. Buttm. I. 155, 199 
(Jelf 86) : the genitive is ^AttoWco, according to rule, 1 C. iii. 4, 
xvi. 12. In A. xxi. 1 we find in good MSS. ttjv Km (1 Mace. 
XV. 23, Joseph. A7it 14. 7. 2), see Buttm. I. 155, Krug. p. 46 : 
the common reading ttjv Kmv is very weakly supported. Tor 
Kcü9, however, a collateral indeclinable form Kco occurs in Strabo 
10. 489. Compare further Duker on Thuc. 8. 41. 

(b) Not as dative of vov^;, after the analogy of the 3rd decl, 
1 C. i. 10, xiv. 15, Eom. vii. 25 ; W? as genitive, for vov, 1 C. 
xiv. 19. The usual form of the dative in Greek writers is voco 
or VQ) : z/oif occurs only in Simplic. ad Aristot. Fhys. 31.25, Philo 
I. 63 (Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1196), the Byzantines, — e.g. 
Malalas, see the index in the Bonn ed., Theophan. 28, — and the 
Fathers: see Lob. p. 453, Boisson. Jfarm. p. 93 sq. Similarly 
ttXoo?, a. xxvii. 9, genit. for ttXoO, as in Arrian, Peripl. p. 176, 
Malalas 5. p. 94, Cinnam. p. 86 ; comp. Lob. l.c, 

(c) The vocative Oee Mt. xxvii. 46, without variant (Jud. xxi. 
3, Wis. ix. l,Act Tliom. 25, 45, bl—TifiSOee 1 Tim. i. 18, vi. 
20) : an instance of this form is hardly to be found in Greek 
writers, comp. Buttm. I. 151. Even in the LXX the voc. is 
usually Oeo^;} 

(d) From oareov we find the uncontracted plural ocrrea L. 
xxiv. 39, and oarewv Mt. xxiii. 27, H. xi. 22, al. The latter is 
not very uncommon in Greek prose, see Lucian, Nccyom. 15, 
Plat. Locr. 102 d. ; comp, also Eurip. Orest 404, Troad. 1177 : 
ocrrea is less common, but see Plat. Locr. 100 b., Aristot. Anim. 
3. 7, Menand. p. 196 (ed. Meineke).'"^ 

The following instances of mdaplasmus are found in the K T. : 

(1) 'O S€(TfjL6<s has in the plural ra Sea-fxd, L. viii. 29, A. xvi. 26, 
XX. 23, and only once ot Sea-fxac, Ph. i. 13; — in every instance witliout 
any variant. In Greek authors, too, Sea-fxoL is more rare than ra 
Sea-fxd : see Thorn. M. p. 204, Buttm. I. 210 ^ (Jelf 85). 

(2) From o-dßßarov we find only the gen. sing, and plur. and 

1 [Kriif^er (p. 44) quotes hi froin (Knomaus in Eiiseb. Prcap. Ev. 5. 33, p. 228; 
also Ttfiohi Luc. Harm. 1, 'luXoht hiHcript. 3175. 6, 'Am^/Vss Aristoph. Acharn. 

2 [In Eov. ii. 1 Tiscli. ruad xpf^trir^v in cd. 7 ; and in llov. ix. 20 N has ;^ecXKiet, 
.sec Lob. p. 207 : ;^po'rZv (for xp'^'^'^v) is strongly supported iu llev. i. 13.J 

^ Comp. Kiihno], Act. p. 558. 



(lat. sing."^ [and accus. })li]r.]: the dative i)hiral is o-aßßaat (wliicli 
ars also in Meleag. 83, 4), lornied according to l*ahso\v I'rom a 



sing. adßßaTy -aT09. 

(3) 'O o-rro?, phiral (g-Itol and) aha A. vii. 12 v. /., as often in 
Greek writers : a singular alrov was never in use, see Sclia^f. Soph. 
Eledr. 13G6. In A. vii., however, the best MSS. have o-trta, which 
now stands in the text.^ 

In regard to gender : — 

(1) Ai/xos is feminine (Dorice, Lob. p. 188) in L. xv. 14, A. xi. 28, 
on the testimony of a few good MSS. ; in L. iv. 25 there is very 
little authority for the feminine. Comp. Malalas 3. p. GO, and see 
Bornem. on A. xi. 28.^ 

(2) In Mk. xii. 26 /Jaro? in masc, though not without v. I. ; in 
L. XX. 37, A. vii. 35, feminine : see Fritz. Mark p. 532. See in 
general Lob. Paral. p. 174 sq., and comp, y] 7rr/A.os Const. Man. 2239, 
2764, al. 

(3) Instead of 6 vtoro?, the later form, some MSS. in Rom. xi. 10 
have TO vüJTov/ the form used by the older writers : see Fritz. 
in loc.^ 

Section IX. 


Peculiar forms deserving attention are, 

1. In the singular : — 

(a) The genitive r}fiLaov<; Mk. vi. 23 (for tlie usual form 
rjfjLLcreof;) from the neuter ijfitav, used as a substantive ; comp. 
Die Chr. 7. 99, Schwarz, Comm. p. 652, Buttm. 1191 (Jelf 

(h) The Ionic dative yr]p€c (contracted from yjpe'i) L. i. 36, 

^ In the LXX we find (besides ffdßßatri) a dative plural from this form, traß- 
ßdrats, 1 Chr. xxiii. 31, 2 Chr. ii. 4, viii. 13, Ez. xlvi. 3, as in Joseph. A7it. 16. 
6. 4. In the N. T. iraßßa.Toi; is occasionally found amongst the various read- 
ings, as Mt. xii, 1, 12, in good MSS. ['^aßßdroi; does not seem to occur in the 
uncial MSS., except in Mt. xii. 1, 12, in B alone. "With (xüßßa.(ri compare In'tfcccrt, 
TfosuTettri (Jelf 117).] 

* [From ö-TÄ^/av, ffTohiot L. xxiv. 13, Rev. xxi. 16 ; trrci^ia Jo. vi. 19 (Tisch. 
ed. 8) is doubtful : see Krug. p. 58.] 

' [See also § 59. 4. b, on this word and on Xnvo;.] 

•* [Fritz, quotes to v. from some early editions of the N. T., but adds : "Cdd. 
Tov v&Jtöv," K either Griesb. nor Tischendorf cites to v. from any MS.] 

* [For 7-0 Xtßocvurev, Eev. viii. 5 JRec, the true reading is tov x. : for o-ap^tos, 
Rev. xxi. 20 Hec, we should read the usual form ircipotov. In Mk. xiv. 3 Bee. 
has TO uXccßaa-Tpov ; Lachm., Fritz., and Tisch, (ed. 8) tov «. ; Treg., "Westcott and 
Hort, Tvv u. ; in other places there is nothing to show the gender : the Attic 
form is aXußaffroi. In A. xxiii. 16 Bee. has to hilpov (2 Chr. xiii. 13, al.), but 
the true reading is Tnv hi'Spciv (A. xxv. 3, Jos. viii. 7, al.) : to hi^pov seems not 
to occur in Greek authors. In A. xxviii. 8 we must read ^utnvTtptov for (the 
Attic) ^vjivnpia : see Lob. p. 518.] 


wliere Rcc. has 'yrjpa ; comp, ovhei from ovho^ in Homer. The 
same form occurs Ps. xci. 15, Eccliis. viii. 6, Theophan. p. 36, 
in the Fathers — e.g. Theodoret, in Ps. cxix. I. 1393 (ed. Hal.), 
— Fabric. Pseuclepigr. II. 630, 747, Boisson. Anecd. III. 19. 

(c) The accusative v'yLTj Jo. v. 11, 15, Tit. ii. 8 (Lev. xiii. 15). 
The Attic writers use another contraction v^lcl, but v^ltj occurs 
Plat. Phced. 89 d, and similar forms are found elsewhere (Matth. 
113. Eem. 1, Jelf 129). 

(d) In A. xxvii. 40, A and several other MSS. have aprificova 
as the accusative of apreficov (comp. jXtj'^covl Hom. Ceirr. 209) ; 
and Lachm. has received it into the text. Lobeck too (Ajax 
p. 171) prefers it to the common form dpre/jLova: " appellativi 
declinatio sine dubio eadem quse proprii." See Anacr. Fragm. 
27, and Fischer in loc} 

2. In the plural : — 

(a) The accus, in eh instead of ea? from nom. sing, in ev<; ; 
as yovel(; Mt. x. 21, L. ii. 27, ypa/jL/iaTel^ Mt. xxiii. 34, etc. The 
same form is also found in Attic writers, e.g. Xenophon (see 
Poppo, Cyrop. p. 32 sq., Weber, Dem. pp. 492, 513), though the 
Atticists reject it; see Matth. 83 a. Eem. 7 (Jelf 97).^ 

(b) Avaiv for hvolv, the dative of the numeral ^vo, Mt. xxii. 
40, L." xvi. 13, A. xii. 6 (Th. M. p. 253), follows the analogy of 
the 3rd declension. It is found in Thuc. 8. 101 {hvalv 'qfiepaL<;), 
in Plutarch, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and others : see Lob. p. 2 1 
sq., Buttm. I. 276. In the genitive hvo is always indeclinable 
(Mt. XX. 24, xxi. 31, Jo. i. 41, 1 Tim. v. 19, al.), as sometimes 
in Greek authors, e.g. Lucian, Dial. Mort. 4. 1, iEsop. 145. 1 
(Matth. 138, Jelf 166). 

(c) The uncontracted forms opewv Eev. vi. 15 (Ez. xi. 10, 
1 K. XX. 28, Is. xiii. 4, al.) and ^eiXecov H. xiii. 15 (Pr. xii. 14, 
xxxi. 31, Wis. i. 6, Ecclus. xxii. 27, al.), for the usual opwv, 
')(eiko)v, the other cases being regular. Such genitives, however, 
are not uncommon in Greek prose, comp. Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 
p. 213, Georgi, Hier. I. 145, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 2. 1 ; as to 
the poets, see Ellendt, IjCX. Soph. IL pp. x, xii. 

^ [From ff'TriKovXa.Tup wc find in Rec. ff'Z'iKovXccTupa, Mk. vi. 27 : but -a.Topa, is 
now generally received. Tlie saino may be said ol' ä.pTifji.uvx.'] 

2 [The otlier form i,s not found in the N. T. In the })lural of Ix^vi, ßdZ;, and 
similar words, the contracted forms do not occur in the N. T. (A. Buttm. 
p. 14).] 


(d) The contracted neuter plural 7)fiia7) (L. xix. 8), used as a 
subst., — compare Theoplir. Ch. 11: M'liat has been said respect- 
ing r}/iiaov<; n])])lies here also. The ordinary form is y/xiaea, 
^vhich some ]\ISS. have in this passage ; Tisch, reads rjfiiaeia 
^vith r,, L; comp. Buttm. I. 248.^ See Fischer, Frol. p. GO 7, 
IJuttm. I. 191. 

(e) The contracted genitive ir7)')(^iov Jo. xxi. 8, Eev. xxi. 17 
(for TTTj-^ecov, which A has in the former passage) : this is a later 
form (see Lob. p. 246), but it is found in Xen. An. 4. 7. 10, 
and frequently in Plutarch.^ 

For the Attic kAcTv (Thorn. M. p. 53G, Lob. p. 4G0), the accus, 
of kXcls, we find the more " common " form KXeiSa in L. xi. 52, and 
(in a few MSS.) Rev. iii. 7, xx. 1 ; in the LXX more frequently, 
Jud. iii. 25, Is. xxii. 22.^ In the plural, KAetSa? is the better read- 
ing iu Mt. xvi. 19, but kXcI? in Rev. i. 18. Of €pL<s also there are 
two plural forms, epiSes 1 C. i. 11, and cpas (both nomin. and accus.) 
2 C. xii. 20 : in G. v. 20 we should probably read cpts.^ Kpeas 
has in the plural the usual contracted form Kpea (Buttm. I. 196), 
Rom. xiv. 21, 1 C. viii. 13 (Ex. xvi. 8, 12), as in Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 6, 
2. 2. 2. On the other hand, Kcpas has Kcpara Rev. v. 6, xiii. 1, 11, 
xvii. 12 (Am. iii. 14), Kepdrwv Rev. ix. 13, xiii. 1 (1 K. i. 50, ii. 29) ; 
and never the contracted Kepa, Kepwv (Buttm. I.e., Bekker, Anecd. 
III. 1001). Lastly, rcpas has always ripara, Mt. xxiv. 24, A. ii. 43, 
v. 12, Jo. iv. 48, TepdriDv Rom. xv. 19, instead of repa, repCjv, 
which are considered the Attic forms (Moeris p. 339, Buttm. /.c, 
Jelf 103). 

Rem. 1. The nomin. sing, of wStvc? occurs in 1 Th. v. 3 (Is. 
xxxvii. 3) in the form u)Blv (for wSi?) : comp. 8eA<^tV, which is not 

^ [Tischendorf, Tregelles, Meyer, and Alford read r,fiitnia ; "NVestcott and Hort, 
r.fAiffioc. Compare ol'Scc Hes. be. 348 (and Gottling in loc), ^r.Xna. Arat. 1068, for 
elia, f/.X'.a. Tischcndorf (ed. 7) quotes rf^-ltrucc from Antoninus Liberalis c. 2. 
p. 16, and Cleomed. Theor. Cycl. 1. 5. p. 23. A. Buttm. inclines to ^^/V« : see 
Gr. p. 14, Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 194.] 

2 [There is good authority for ßa^ius L. xxiv. 1, Tpaius 1 P. iii. 4, instead of 
ßafios, -rpcLioi (Lob, p. 247). Of comparatives in uv both the contracted and the 
uncontracted forms are found in the N. T. ; from tU, t};, öa-n;, only the uncon- 
tracted, with the single exception of ctov in the formula 'ius orov (A. Buttm. 
pp. 26, 31). In Eev. xx. 8 N has for riira-apffi the poetical form Tirpaffi, which is 
also a v.l. in A. x. 11, xi. 5.] 

^ [From x'^P'' ^^'^ ^^^^ ^^^e accus. x^piTo., A. xxiv. 27, Jude 4, as in Eur. Hel. 
1378, Xen. Hell. 3. 5. 16, ah] 

* [Tisch, (ed. 7) received the norain. tpus in 2 C. I.e., 1 Tim. vi. 4, but now reads 
ipis in both places : in Tit. iii. 9 authorities are divided between 'ipus (Lachm., 
Treg.) and ipiv (Tisch.). Similar to this is yr>T£/f, accus, plur. of *r,cTis, Mt. xv. 
32, Mk. viii. 3 (Lob. p. 326). Tisch, now (ed. 8) reads vr.a^i; in Mk. viii. : Fritz. 
{Mark, Exc. 3, p. 796 sq.) examines the readings, and decides in favour of this 
Ionic form in both passages. Phrynichus (App. p. 52) says : vyjffTis ««< to TXn- 
6uvrtKov vviffTil-s Ko.) vriarn: Lobeck {Phryn. p. 326) adds "leg. «jö-Tfij." See also 
Tisch, on Mk. viii. 3 (ed. 8), and Wetstein in loc.'\ 


uncommon in later writers ; also KXeiStV, Constant. Porphyr. 14. 208. 
See Buttm. I. 162 (Jelf 104 19). 

Rem. 2. XIAovrog, which is usually masc, often appears in good 
MSS. as a neuter noun ; see E. ii. 7, iii. 8, 16, Ph. iv. 19, Col. ii. 2 
{Ad. Apocr. p. 76).^ This peculiarity is probably to be referred 
to the i:)opiilar language, as indeed 6 and ro -n-X. are used pro- 
miscuously in modern Greek ; see Coray, Pint. Vit. II. p. 58, Isocr. 
II. 103, 106. We find also t6 Cv^os 2 C. ix. 2 (in B), Ph. iii. 6 (in 
A, B),2 see Clem. Ep. p. 17 (Ittig) : perhaps also to ^x«? L- xxi. 25, 
if rjxov; (which is the reading of good MSS.) is accentuated rjxov;, 
as by Lachm. and others; comp. Malal. pp. 121, 436. ^ In later 
writers, comp, to kXolSo? Theophan. contin. p. 222 (ed. Bekker) : see 
in general Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 106. Conversely, later writers 
use 6 SetTT^/o? (L. xiv. 16 in B, D)^ and 6 rctxo? (Ducas p. 266, ed. 
Bonn, Ad. Apocr. p. 84). The heteroclite o-koto's (Poppo, Time. I. 
225) is once masc. in the N. T., H. xii. 18 (where however o-koto) 
is uncertain);^ elsewhere it is alwaj's neuter {(tkotov?, -tcl), without 
any difference of reading. ''EAeog is sometimes masc. in the LXX, 
as also in Philo I. 284, but is usually neuter in the MSS. of the 
X. T. ; the masc. form being noted as a variant in Mt. ix. 13, xii. 7, 
xxiii. 23, Tit. iii. 5, H. iv. 16,« only. In A. iii. 10 C has Odixßov 
as genitive of Od/xßo<;. 

Rem. 3. In the MSS. of the N. T. we find several examples of 
the V appended to the accus, sing, in a or rj (eA-TrtSav, crvyyevrjv) ; ^ 
as dcTTepav Mt. ii. 10 (C), x^^P"-^ ^^- XX- 25 (A), dpa-evav Rev. xii. 
13 (A), eiKovav xiii. 14 (A), /xT^vav xxii. 2 (A), AtW A. xiv. 12 (in 
several MSS.), o-vyyevrjv Rom. xvi. 11 (A), do-<^aA7}v H. vi. 19 (A, 
C, D), TToh-qprjv Rev. i. 13 (A). Such forms are met with in the 
Byzantine writers (see the index to Leo Gramm, p. 532, Boisson. 
Anecd. Y. 102), and in the apocryphal writers (Tisch, de Ev. Apocr. 
p. 137) : in the Apocalypse Lachm. has admitted the above-men- 
tioned forms into the text.^ This subjoined v is probably to be 
considered, not (as by Ross) as an original ending propagated in 
the popular spoken language, but as an arbitrary extension of the 
familiar accusative ending (Matth. 73. 2) beyond its proper limits 

^ [The genitive is always -tXovtov; the dative does not occur in the N. T. St. 
Paul uses both forms ; the other N. T. writers o tX. only, llecent editors read 
TO -rX. in all the above passages, and in 2 C. viii. 2, E. i. 7, Col. i. 27 : see 
Ellicott on E. i. 7, A. Buttin. p. 22.] 

2 [To ^. is probably the true reading in both passages.] 

3 ['O i^;t'<'? occurs H. xii. 19.] 

* On this word see Hase, Lao Dlac. p. 239 ; Schaif. Ind. u'Esop. pp. 128, 163; 
Boisson. Herod. Epim. p. 22, Anecd. I, 51. [It is a. v.l. in Key. xix. 9, 17.] 

^ [In this passage ^«(p-w is now generally received for ö-xst-w. ] 

^ ['o iXio; is a variant in one or two other passages, but to 'ix. is now generally 
received in all instances.] 

^ Comp. Sturz, Dial. AI p. 127 ; Lob. Paral p. 142. 

^ [Except in liev. i. 13 {To^vpnv). In his larger edition T;achm. reads k(T(pa.Xv\^ 
in H. vi. 19, receiving the v, but i-egarding the word as inflected according to the 
1st decl. {metaplasmus) : see A. Buttm. p. 14 (Thayer's note).] 


(Lol)eck I.e.). In adjectives of two terminations in r]<; this form of 
tlie accus, is said to be ^olic (Matth. 113. Rem. 2) : ^ see further 
Bornem. on A. xiv. 12.2 

Section X. 


1. A simple mode of declining certain GroGcised oriental 
names was introduced by the LXX and the N. T. writers. In 
tins, the genitive, dative, and vocative have usually one common 
form, and the accusative ends in v. Thus ^Irjaouf!, genitive 
^Irjaov Mt. xxvi. 69 ; dative 'Irjaov Mt. xxvi. 17;^ vocative 
^Ir](rov Mk. i. 24; accusative 'Irjcrovv Mt. xxvi. 4, A. xx. 21 : 
— Äevt or Aevt<; (L. v. 29), accusative Aevtv Mk. ii. 14: — 
'IwGTj^, genitive 'Iwarj Mt. xxvii. oQ, L. iii. 29, al., — but in 
Mark B, D, L have always 'Iojo-tJto? : * see Buttm. I. 199. 
The inflexion of the Egyptian word Ga^ov<; (Plat. Plmclr. 
274: d) presents a parallel to that of 'Itjo-ov^ (Matth. 70. 9). 

The word Mcoa7]<; {Mcovarj^) is declined in two ways in the 
N. T. The genitive is invariably Mwcrea)?, as in the Greek 
Fathers and the Byzantine writers ; comp. Diod. Sic. Fcl, 34. 
p. 194 (Lips.). In the dative even good MSS. vary between 
Mcoo-el (which is also found in Eusebius and Theophanes) and 
Mccarj ; comp. Mt. xvii. 4, Mk. ix. 5, L. ix. 33, Jo. v. 46, ix. 29, 
A. vii. 44, Eom. ix. 15,2 Tim. iii. 8.^ The accusative is Mcoarjv 
A. vi. 11, vii. 35, 1 C. x. 2, H. iii. 3 (Diod. Sic. 1. 94) ; but in L. 

1 [Siich forms as tlffißnv, ^y^-^sv/jv (Avith accent tliro^^Ti back), for iliriß?,^ 
Ivirfiivr,, are said to be -^olic (Matth. 113. Kern. 2 ; Bekker, Anecd. p. 1233).] 

2 [In ed, 7 Tisch, received the final v in the passages quoted above from the 
Apocalypse, and in «.^(pa.X'nv H. vi. 19, A/a» A. xiv. 12 : see Proleg. p. 55. In 
ed. 8 he rejects the v throughout, see his note on H. vi. 19. Similar forms are 
frequently found in t<, but not in any of these instances ; see Scrivener, Colla- 
Hon p. liv. See further A. Buttm. Gr. p. 14 ; also Mullaeh, Vulg. pp. 22, 162, 
■«•here are given examples from inscriptions and analogies in modern Greek.] 

^ Besides these forms, the MSS. of the LXX have often 'ln(ro7 for the dative 
(Dt. iii. 21, 28, xxxi, 23), and even for the genitive (Ex. xvii. 14). 

* [D has 'laKußov in Mk. xv. 47. Eeceut editors read 'Ua-od in L. iii. 29.] 

* [Lachmann reads -e-^ in A. vii. 44, and in Kom. ix. 15 {-(ni vuirg.) : Ti- 
schendorf (ed. 7) in Mk. ix. 4, 5, A. vii. 44. In Mk. ix. Tisch, now (ed. 8) reads 
MioüffiT: Acts vii. 44 is probably influenced by the usage of the LXX. — 'Imuwv; 
is regularly inflected according to the 1st decl. ; but we find a dative -vn in L. 
VÜ. 18, 22.] 


xvi. 2 9 (and here only) all the MSS. have Mcocrea, a form which 
occurs in Eiiseb. II . E. 1. 3, and often in Clem. AL, Georg. 
Syncell., Glycas, and others. All these forms, with the exception 
of Maj(7e&)?, may clearly be derived from the nominative Mwo-r}?; 
see the analogies in Buttm. I 198, 210/ 221 (Jelf 116). Mo)- 
0-60)9 has been referred to a form Moicrev^, which however does 
not occur, and is after all unnecessary, for the genit. of "Aprj^; is 
sometimes "Apeco^; (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 2 2 4). 'No other forms 
are found in the jN". T., but a genitive Mcocrrj occurs in the LXX 
and in Geo. Phranzes, and Mcoaov Bauer, Glossar. Theodoret. 
p. 269; a vocative Mcoo-rj in Ex. iii. 4. Mavaacrr) [? -aa?}^'] 
has in Mt. i. 1 the accusative Mavaatrrj, with the various read- 
ing -aarfv. 

In the received text the name Solomon is declined like Bcvo^cov, 
-wvros ; thus accus. i^oXo/xcuj/ra Mt. i. 6, genit. ;§oA.o/x6ji/tos Mt. xii. 42, 
L. xi. 31, Jo. X. 23, A. iii. 11, v. 12. The better MSS., however, have 
-wva, -wvos;^ see Wetst. I. 228. This latter inflexion, which is 
according to analogy, and is the received form in Josephus (ed. Ha- 
vercarap), should therefore be admitted into the text : -wv, -o)vto<;, 
would imply derivation from a participle (Buttm. I. 169,luoh.Paralip. 
p. 347). The nominative must then, in accordance with the best 
authorities,^ be written ^oAo/xoov,^ like Ba^uAwv, &c., — not 'XoXo/jcwv, 
as by Lachmann and others : IlocraScüv (-wvos) is not analogous, 
since it is a contraction of Iloa-eiSawv. In the LXX this name 
is indeclinable : 5 see 1 K. iv. 7, 29 (25), v. 12, 15, 16, vi. 18 
[] V. 18], al. 

2. Many Hebrew proper names which might have been in- 
flected according to the 3rd decl. are treated as indeclinable in 
the LXX and the N.T. ;^ as 'Aapcoi/, genitive H. vii. 11, ix. 4, 
dative Ex. vii. 9, A. vii. 40, accusative Ex. vii. 8. Compare in 
particular Mt. i. and L. iii. 23 sqq. : also ^vfjiicov L. iii. 30, ^aX- 

1 [These two reff, are incorrect : perhaps Matth. pp. 198, 220 (§ 70, 78 a), 
Buttm. I. 221.] 
- [That is, UHually : -eövros is well supported in A. iii. 11, v. 12.] 
3 Comp, also P.ippelb. Cod. Diez. p. 9. [The accentuated MSS. are strongly 
in favour of l-aXoiJiZv^ see Tisch, on Mt. vi. 29. Tisch., Treg., Weste, and Hort, 
write loXo/Muv ; except in A. vii. 47, loXof/,uv, or (Tisch.) 'S.xkuf^uv.^ 

* In Glycas, l>(;kkcr still (in the new edition) writes ^oXo/xuvroi, -uvtx ; but in 
the nomin. loXof^ciuv. 

* [Not always ; e.g. Prov. xxv. 1, 'S'x.Xu/ji.Mvro; {'2oXof/,MVTo; Alex.).] 

* [Sometimes we lind two forms, one declined, tius otluirnot ; as Maplx, Mxpidfi; 
similarly, iarav 2 C. xii. 7 {Rec, Meyer), iarai/a? L. xiii. IG, al. (Ecclus. xxi. 
27, — not found in the LXX).] 


IKüv L. iii. 32, KeBpoop Jo. xviii. 1 v. I. Similarly 'lepL'^co,^ genit. 
Dt. xxxii. 49, Mt. xx. 29, H. xi. 30, accus. L. x. 30, xviii. 35 
(Glyc. p. 30 4);^ 'lepovaaXyfjL, — for whicli however the Gra3cised 
form 'lepoaoXv/jLa should probably be preferred (on the authority 
of the MSS.) in Matthew, Mark, and John.^ ' lepocroXvfia is 
usually inflected as a neuter plural, as Mt. iv. 25, Mk. iii. 8, L. 
xxiii. 7, Jo. ii. 23 ; it is feminine in Mt. ii. 3 (iii. 5 ?) only.'* In 
the LXX we find 'lepovaaXij/j, always ; Josephus has 'lepoao- 
Xvfia. Similarly, to iräaya L. ii. 41, Jo. ii. 23, as in the LXX •} 
{to) GiKepa L. i. 15, and in the LXX, Lev. x. 9, Num. vi. 3, Is. 
xxiv. 9, al. : Eusebius {Froejp. Ev. 6. 10) has a genitive aUepo^^ 
The Hebrew plural termination occurs only in XepovßLfM H. ix. 
5 ; but this word is construed like a neuter plural (as if Trvev- 
fiaTo), as in the LXX (Gen. iii. 24, 1 K. viii. 7, Ez. x. 3, al.).' 

In Rev. i. 4, oltto 6 wv koI 6 -^v kol 6 ip)(0fji€vo<s, a whole phrase 
(forming, as it were, a Greek equivalent for niri"') is treated as an 
indeclinable noun, — probably by design, as expressing the name of 
the Unchangeable One. This resembles the use of ev, fxrjOiv, and 
similar words, in Greek philosophical writings, even as early as 
Aristotle; e.g. Aristot. Polit 5. 3, Procl. Theol. Plat. 2 (ed. Hoeschel), 
/u-era rov ev, x^P'-'^ '''^^ ^^ (Stollberg, de Sol N. 71 p. 14 sqq.) ; but 

^ [Usually written 'lip'X'^ (-";U'^ Tisch.) ; so "Winer in his EWB.] 
2 Elsewhere we find two modes of declining this word : (a) Genit. 'lipi^ou 
3 (1) Esdr. V. 22, dat. 'Up>z^ Procop. de jEdif. 5. 9, Theodoret V. p. 81 (Hal.), 
or *lipix,o7 Joseph. Bell. Jud. 1. 21, 4, Suid. s. v. 'üptyivr,s : — {h) From 'lipiKoZ; 
(Ptol. 5. 16. 7), genit. 'lipiKovvroi Strabo 16. 763, accus. 'UptxovvTci 16. 760, and 
usually in Josephus. 

^ [In Mt. xxiii. 37 all the MSS. have *Upov<raX^fz, ; this is the only form of 
the word used in the Apocalypse. In St. Luke's Gospel 'lipoa-oXv/aa occurs only 
3 or 4 times, 'itpouff^XrifA nearly 30 times ; see the Preface to tliis Gospel in Bp. 
Wordsworth's Greek Testament. In the Acts (setting aside xv. 4 as somewhat 
doubtful) the inflected form occurs 24 times, the indeclinable 36. St. Paul has 
'itpova-aXrtfz, except in Gal. i. 17, 18, ii. 1 (see Lightfoot on Gal. iv. 26) ; the same 
form is used in Heb. xii. 22.] 

* [A. Buttmann (p. 18) maintains that the word is here treated as indeclinable, 
and supposes an ellipsis of « •z-oXn.'] 

* So also in the Fathers ; see Suicer, Thes. II. 607 sqq. Epiphanius {HcBr. II. 
19) inflects even the plural r« Tuff^a,. 

^ Most of these are declined in Josephus, who, in conformity with the genius 
of the Greek language, gives Greek terminations and inflexions to almost all 
personal names, as''A5a^flj, 'l9-/*a>jXaj, N&I;^«?, "lirecKo;, al. The instances of un- 
declined foreign names which Georgi (Hlerocr. I. 138) produces from Plato and 
Pausanias are not all in point, and can prove nothing against the tendency to 
inflexion. Even Ptolemy has some indeclinable names of places, by the side of 
a multitude of inflected names : see Nobbe, Sched. Ptol. I. 23 sq. (Lips. 1841). 
[In A. xvi. 11 the best MSS. have tls nUv UoXi-j {Rec. Nsa^aXo), see Cobet, 
!^r. T. Vatic, p. xiii, Lob. p. 604 : in Col. iv. 13 we should read 'lipZ U'oku.] 

'' [The LXX have sometimes el Xipovßl/u, {-ßiiv), Ex. xxv. 19, al. ; Josephus, 
ot and ai Xsp!)uß-7< ; Philo always ra. Xipoußifi ; see Delitzsch on H. ix. 5. In this 
passage Lachm. and Tisch, read Xipovßuv.] 


always ck tov ev6<;, Iv rw kvt, in the writings of Proclus edited by 
Creuzer. Compare also tov 6 hdva Schsef. Dem. III. 282. 

Section XL 


1. Adjectives of three terminations, particularly those in to?, 
/X109, 6to9, aio^, are not unfrequently used as if they had only two, 
especially by Attic writers (Matth. 117, Jelf 127).^ Thus in the 
N. T. we find crrpaTca ovpdvio^ L. ii. 13, A. xxvi. 19, Koajxto^ 
1 Tim. ii. 9 : in Eev. iv. 3 also o[xolo<; is the best attested reading, 
though Ipt? is feminine.^ But in 1 Tim. ii. 8, iiraipovra^ 6o-lov<; 
p^etpa9 (where some MSS. have oala^), 6<tlov^ may be joined with 
iiraipovra^ ; though Fritzsche is wrong in maintaining that this 
must be the construction (Bom. III. 161). Compare also Tit. 
iii. 9, where /Jüdraooc is used in reference to feminine nouns ; 
and Ja. i. 26, fidraio^ rj OprjaKela. 

In later writers we find instances of the converse, a feminine 
form being given to adjectives which in classical Greek have 
only two terminations, e.g. 0-/3709; see Lob. p. 105, and Paral. 
p. 455 sqq., comp. Ellendt, Arr. ÄL I. 242.^ In this adjective, 
however, the feminine form occurs even in a citation from Epi- 
menides, Tit. i. 12. From crvyy€vri<;, -69, is formed a peculiar 
feminine, avyy6VL<; (as a substantive) L. i. 36; this is received 
by Lachm. on the authority of good MSS. (Lob. p. 451) : comp. 
Malal. pp. 95, 96. 

Atwvtog is usually in the N. T. an adj. of two terminations, but 
atwvtav occurs 2 Th. ii. 16, H. ix. 12, — in the latter passage without 
any variant ; the same form is given by a single MS. in 2 P. i. 11, 
and also in A. xiii. 48 : comp. Num. xxv. 13, Plat. Tim. 38 b. 
Be/?ata, Rom. iv. 16, al., which the fastidious Thom. M. condemns 
(p. 149), is used by Isocrates, Demosthenes (Weber, Dem. p. 133), 
Xenophon, al. : comp. Duker on Thuc. 2. 43. ''Epr]ixo<;, which varies 
even in Attic writers,* has always two terminations in the N. T. 
As to a(r(f)aXr)v H. vi. 19, i.e. da-cfiuiXrjv, See § 9. Rem. 3. 

In the N. T. Lexicons ^ ypijaco^; is given as an adjective of 

two terminations (Ph. iv. 3 ?), but without sufficient reason, 

as no example of yvijaco'; as a feminine form can be quoted. 

1 See Ehiisley, Kuiip. lleracl. p. 77 (Lips.) ; Monk, Eurip. Jlippol. p. 56, and 
Eurip. Ale. 126, 548, 1043. 

^ See Winer, ßJxef/et. Stud. I. 152 : [as to 1 Tim. ii. 8 sec Ellicott in loc] 
3 [See also Mullach, Vul(j. p. 156.] 

* Comp. Ellendt, Arr. AL 1. 262, Matth. 118. Rem. 1. ["Etö/^o; varies in the 
N. T., as in classical Greek.] 

* [Liinemann rightly adds, except Grimm's.] 


2. On the comparison of adjectives we have only to observe 
that — 

(a) The neuter comparative of Ta;^i;9 is rd'^cop (Jo. xx. 4, 
1 Tim. iii. 14, H. xiii. 19, 23, al., 1 Mace. ii. 40, Wis. xiii. 9), 
for wliicli Oacraov, in Attic Outtov, was commonly used. Td- 
y^Lov is regularly used by Diod. Sic, Dion. H., Plutarch, al.; see 
Lob. p. 77, Meineke, Menand. p. 144.^ 

(h) In 3 Jo. 4 we find the double comparative fiei^oT€po<;, and 
in E. iii. 8 iXaxc(TT6T€po<;, a comparative of a superlative ; comp. 
eXa^to-Toraro?, Sext.Emp. 9. 40 6, and in Latin minwiisswius,pes' 
simissimus. Such forms belong mainly to poetry (Apoll. Rhod. 
2. 368 fxeiorepo^), or to the later language, which sought in this 
way to add fresh strength to the comparative, which had lost 
some of its significance : comp. KpeiTTorepo^ Ducas 27, 29, 37, 
fiei^ovorepo^ ib. c. 27 and Malal. 18. p. 490,yLteifoTe/3O9 Constant. 
Torph. III. 257, ifKeiorepo^; Theophan. p. 567. Some isolated 
examples of a similar kind are found in earlier writers (see 
Wetst. IL 247); these are not, however, introduced as words ac- 
tually current, but are extemporised by the writers themselves, 
as eVp^a.TCüTe/309 Aristot. Metaph. 10. 4 : see Buttm. I. 274, Lob. 
p. 136 (Jelf 140). Compare in German mehrere from 77iehr. 

(c) The comparatives Karcorepo^; (E. iv. 9), äv^repo^ (L. xiv. 
10), i(jcoT€po<; (A. xvi. 24), from the adverbs Karco, avco, eaco, are 
groundlessly questioned by Buttmann (I. 271). They are cer- 
tainly found in the N. T. and in the LXX ; and not only occur 
frequently in later Greek (as Leo Diac. 10. 1), but are even 
used by Attic writers (Matth. 132). 

On the comparative form of other adverbs derived from ad- 
jectives, as 7repiaaoTepco<^ (2 C. i. 12, G. i. 14, Ph. ii. 28, al.), a 
form not unknown to classical writers, see Buttm. II. 345, Elms- 
ley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 100 (Lips.), 

The positive ripeixo<;, 1 Tim. ii. 2, is not found in the older Greek 
writers, see Buttm. L 271, II. 343 : Lübeck {Path. I. 158) has 
pointed it out in an inscription {Inscript. Olbiopol. 2059. 24). 

^ [From '^itXovs we find the peculiar compar. ^tTkonpos Mt. xxiii. 15 (Appian, 
Proef. Hi'it. Rom. 10), as if from IitXo; (which occurs in Anthol. Pal. 10. 101): 
see A. Buttm. p. 27, Lob. p, 234. The compar. of ocyctSoi in the N. T. is Kpu<r(Tuv, 
superl. KfÄTKrTo-, ; ßiXnov occurs once as an adverb, 2 Tim. i. 18 ; ;^£//»wv is the 
usual compar. of xaxos (A. Buttm. I.e.). Ukiuv occurs much less frequently than 



Section XII. 


1. The temporal instead of the syllabic augment occurs 

(a) In the imperfect rj/jueWe, Jo. iv. 47, xi. 51, xii. 33, xviii. 
32, L. X. 1, A. xvi. 27, xxvii. 33, Eev. x. 4, with decided pre- 
ponderance of authority: in L. ix. 31, Jo. vi. 71, H. xi. 8, efjueWe 
is better attested.-^ See in general Bockh, Plat. Men. p. 148 sq. 

(h) In the imperfect ijBvvaro Mt. xxvi. 9, Mk. vi. 5, 19, xiv. 5, 
Jo. ix. 33, xi. 37, L. viii. 19, xix. 3, with preponderant authority; 
whilst there is good evidence for ihvvaro in L. i. 22, A. xxvi. 32, 
Rev. xiv. 3, and iSvvaaOe 1 C iii. 2. The aor. i^SvvrjOrjv is fully 
established Mt. xvii. 16, 19, Mk. ix. 28, L. ix. 40, 1 C. iii. 1.'^ 
On these common Attic forms see Buttm. I. 3 1 7^ (Jelf 171), and 
comp. Bornem. Act. p. 278 [Veitch, Gr. Verbs, s. vv.]. 

(c) But neither rjßovko^rjv, A. xv. 37, xxviii. 18, nor yßovXrj- 
Orjv, 2 Jo. 12 (Matth. 162, Jelf l7l) is sufficiently attested : see 
Bornem. Act. p. 233. 

2. The syllabic augment in a verb beginning with a vowel 
occurs Jo. xix. 32, 33, in Karea^av, 1 aor. indie, of KaTdyvvf.Li, 
(comp. Thom. M. p. 498), and even in the other moods, as /carea- 
7Wö-t* Jo. xix. 31 (Buttm. II. 97,Jelf 173. 8): comp. Thuc. 3.89, 
Aristot. Anim. 9. 43, Plat. Cratyl. 389 b, c.^ It is also inserted 
in the fut. Kared^co Mt. xii. 20 (from the LXX),^to distinguish 
this from the future of Kardyco. But from oyvio/xai, in which 
verb the syllabic augment is most commonly used in classical 

' [Jo. xi. 51, Eev. x. 4, are somewhat doubtful ; in IT. xi. 8 we should probably 
read yif>ci>.?.iv. For -^/u,. see also L. vii. 2, xix. 4, A, xii, 6 ; for £/*., Jo. vi. 6, vii. 
39, A. xxi. 27, Kev. iii. 2.] 

^ [On the evidence now before us, we should probably read *)^vv. seven times 
only, Mk. iv. 33, vi. 19, xiv. 5, L. viii. 19, xix, 3, Jo. ix. 33, xii. 39 ; and i^w. 
(wliieh occurs in liec. twice only) twelve times. In the aorist we must read 
«5yv5i^>jv (except in Mk. vii. 24, n^uvaffh), but JSwi'. is often a variant. From 
ßflu'Xa^a/ the forms with ♦; are nowhere sudicicTitly attested,] 

^ Also Georgi, llicrocr. \. 32; Jacobs, AcldU. T. p, 554 ; Ellendt, Arr. Al. II. 
208 ; lioisson. yKn. (Jaz. p, 173, and Ariccd. V. 19. 

■* [Veitch quotes Kar-tayTi, -layuv, -locyil?, from Ilippocr. 4. 220, 128, 172. On 
this word see ("obet, N. T. Vatic, p. Ixxix.] 

* In Cinnam. p. 190 we find an unusual (brm of the perfect, fi/tria,y*!Ks. 

* [This fut. does not occur in the LXX {K/zrei'^fu Hab. iii. 12); in Is. xlii. 3 
the word is ffwrpl-^u. Kccnü^u occurs I's, xlvii. 8 Symm,] 


Greek, we find oyvrjad/jL-qu A. vii. 1 G (as in Greek authors occa- 
sionally, Lob. p. 139): also a>cra, wadfiijv A. vii. 27, 39, 45, 
for ecoo-a, icoadfirjv (§ 15). For similar instances see Poppo, 
Thicc. ILL ii. p. 407, the Index to Leo Gr. p. 533. [Veitch, 
G7\ V. s. vv.] 

3. In verbs bec^inninsj with ev we find 

(a) Without augment: evSoKrjaa usually, tjuS. being favoured 
by the ]\ISS. in Mfc. xvii. 5, 1 C. x. 5, Col. i. 19, H. x. 6, 8, 
only ; — evXoyrjcra more frequentl}^ than rjvX. (which is found 
Mt. xiv. 19, L. xxiv. 30, H. xi. 20, 21), and the perf. €v\6jr]K€v 
H. vii. 6 ; — ev-^ovro A. xxvii. 29 ; — ev)(aplcrTrio-e A. xxvii. 35; — 
evTropelro A. xi. 29 ; — and decidedly evpLo-Ketv ^ (except rjvpcaKov 
Mk. xiv. 55, in good MSS. ; comp, further A. vii. 46, L. 
xix. 48). 

(b) With augment : Tjuxop'V^ Eom. ix. 3 (the best reading), 
ev-^opL'qv occurs Xen. Anah. 4. 8. 25, Cyr. 3. 2. 15, but not 
without variants; — rjv^aplcrTycrav Kom.i. 2 1 ; — r)v(j)6p7]a€v L. xii. 
16 (doubtful); — TjvKatpovv Mk. vi. 31 (but doubtful in A. xvii. 
21); — rjucppdvOT] A. ii. 26 (from the LXX). See in general 
Buttm. I. 321, Poppo, TIiuc. I. 227, also Lehm. Lucian II. 456 
(Jelf 173, Don. p. 196). EvajyeXi^. has the augment after ev- 
(without any variant), A. viii. 35, 40, xvii. 18, 1 C. xv. 1, G. iv. 
13, Eev. X. 7, al. (see Lob. p. 269), — even TrpoevTjyyeXlcraTo G. 
iii. 8 ; so also evapearelv H. xi. 5, though A and several other 
MSS. have evapearrjKevat, without augment. IIpo^ev)(ea6ai 
almost always has the augment without any variant, as 
7rpo<;r}v^aTo Mt. xxvi. 44, A. viii. 15, TTpo^-qv^ero Mk. i. 35, 
L. xxii. 41, al.^ 

4. OlKohofjuelv, the only verb beginning with ot which occurs 

* Comp. Lob. p. 140, and Ajax p. 123 ; Herrn. Eur. Bacch. p. 11 ; Boisson. 
Philostr. Epp. p. 75. Even in Attic Greek the augm. is defended by Elmsley, 
Eur. Med. 191, and it occurs frequently in the apocryphal writers {Ei\ Nie. c. 
20) and in the Fathers. [See Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.; compare Don. p. 196.] 

2 [The uor. of it/^axE« occurs 16 times : Rec. has ilVox,. once only, Lachm. 12 
times, Treg, 8, Tisch. 9, Weste, and Hort 10. This diversity shows the difficulty 
of decision. The imperfect also is doubtful (1 Th, ii. 8). In ilXoyiu the augment 
should probably be rejected throughout. In Rom. ix. 3 we must read nlx,'of^r,v, 
but A. xxvii. 29 is doubtful. Eu!popn<nv is the true reading in L. xii. 16 ; ivxvi- 
fovt in Mk. vi. 31, but -nvK. in A. xvii. 21. In A. vii. 41 we have tv^poclvovro ; in 
A. xvi. 11, Mt. xix. 12, si^-j^pof^iu and eüvöv;^;/^« reject the augment. From 
x-ahuhu we have only iKä^iv^o» in the N. T. YiZpot and tjupi^nv are not unfre- 
quently v. II. , but the evidence is against the augm. in this verb, except in 
nupia-Kov, ni/pia-KÖfjLriv. nponvx"/^'^' always has the augment, but -tv- is often a 
variant. See Veitch, Gr. V. s. vv.] 


in past tenses,-^ has the regular augment, not indeed without 
V. II. but on greatly preponderating authority ; as aiKoSofirjcre 
Mt. vii. 24, xxi. 33, a>KoB6fjL7]To L. iv. 29, wKoSofMovv L. xvii. 28, 
(pKohofirjOrj Jo. ii. 20 : only in A. vii. 47 have good MSS. 
oIkoSc/jL7](7€, on which later form see Lob. p. 153 (Jelf 173. 6). 

5. In the verb Trpocj^yreveiv the augment is usually inserted 
after the preposition (Buttm. I.335,Don. p. 199),andin Jude 14 
the best reading is irpoe^rjTevo-e ; but in all other passages in the 
IST. T. the better MSS. have iirpocf).: thus iirpocpTjTevcrav Mt. xi. 
13, i7rpo(f)r)T6V(Tafi€v Mt. vii. 22, eirpo^yjTevare Mt. xv. 7, Mk. 
vii. 6, L. i. 67, Jo. xi. 51, iTrpocfujrevov A. xix. 6 (comp. Num. xi. 
25, 26, Ecclus. xlviii. 13). Schulz (on Mt.vii. 22) urged that 
this form should be received into the text in every case, and this 
has been done by Lachm. and Tisch. In later writers the augm. 
is often put before the prepos., as iirpo^OriKev, iav/jißovXevov (see 
the Index to Ducas, to Jo. Cananus, al., in the Bonn ed.), 
lKaTr]'yovv Epiphan. Men. 33. 16 '} in TrpocpTjreveiv, however, this 
is less strange, since there is no simple verb tprjrevetv.^ 

6. The augment of the form dXrjc^a (for the unused XiXycfya, 
Buttm. 1. 316) is extended to the 1 aor. Kar€i\7]<j)07]v, which is 
found Jo. viii. 4 (though not without a v. I.) instead of jcareX. ; 
see Maittaire, Dialectt. p. 58 (ed. Sturz). Traces of this form 
already existed in Ionic Greek.* 

7. A double au{^ment is found in 

{a) aTreKarearaOT) Mt. xii. 1 3, Mk. iii. 5, L. vi. 1 0, now rightly 
admitted into the text : comp. dire/carearTjo-e Lucian, Philopatr. 
0. 27, aireKaTeaTTjaav Ducas 29, aTreKarecm]^ Theophan. p. 374, 
dvreKarearrjv Cinnam. p. 259 : see Dindorf, Diod. S. p. 539, 
and Schöef Fluiarch, V. p. 198.^ 

' [The only simple verb, — there are several compounds : Tisch, now receives 
oU. in .Jo. ii. 20, i7reix,o}oju.t}(nv 1 G. iii. 14 (Treg., Alt'.), .■oUo'So/u.ticr^cit L. vi. 48 (see 
A. Buttm. in iStud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 164) : Treg. reads o/x. in A. vii. 47. In these 
four places ol)c. is received by Wcstc. and Hort. See Tisch, on A. vii. 47, and 
Prolejj. p. 55 (ed. 7). (Jomp. oixo^^f^tiffeav Ruth iv. 11 {Alex.), otxriiptjirsv Ps. cii. 
13, al.] 

^ Epiphann Mon. edlla et inedita, cura A. Dressel (Par. 1843). 
3 [Laclim. reails ^poi(p. in Jude 14 only; Tisch., Treg., Westcott and Hort, 
l-rpo(f>. always. The LXX use both forms.] 

"* [Comp. iipyJuv, Ionic for ipp'/Jt]v. ]5ut here k/xthX. has little support.] 
* [Tliis is ])roljiibly the true reading in Mk. viii. 25 (Ex. iv. 7).] 
' Comp, also i-prponprtrivov Leo Oramm. ])p. 33, 35, 36, iKctTiaKivaffccv Canan. 
462, i<ruvifji,xpT6pouv ih. 478, rKpeopia-rxi Tli(!ophan. 112, Wpoiroc'^it. Tlicodor. Oraimn. 
40. 8. As to the Attic writ(!rs see V. I'ritzsche, Aristoph. 1. 55. [Comp, icrpovö- 
fiiva-a Jud. ii. 14, al. See also MuUach p. 246. J 


(li) In dvew^ev Jo. ix. 14, 30, ai^ew;)^^/; L i. G4 {Irr. V. s. v. 
0670)); once even in the mWw. iKow ave(ö'^d?]vaL L. iii. 21. From 
this verb however several other forms are found in good MSS. : 
7]vot^€v Rev. xii. 16, al., r)voi')(6riaav Iiev. xx. 12, i^votyrjv A. xii. 
10, Kev. xi. 19, xv. 5, — as in the LXX and later writers {Irr. V. 

1. c, Lob. p. 157) ; and with a threefold auf,niient, 'qveM'^Orjcrav 
Mt. ix. 30, Jo. ix. 10, A. xvi. 26, Rev. xx. 12 v. I (Gen. vii. 1 1, 
Dan. vii. 10),'qvewyixevov A. ix. 8, Rev. xix. 11 (Nicet. Eugen. 

2. 84, 128, V. l.),r)vecü^€ Jo. ix. 14 v. I (Gen. viii. 6, 3 Mace, 
vi. 18): comp. T\\i\o, Apocr. I. 669.' [Jelf 173, 297,Veitch, 
Gr. Verbs, pp. Q>Q>, 67.] 

(c) In r^velx^aOe 2 C. xi. 1 {Eh), xi. 4 {Bee.) — compare 
Thuc. 5. 45, Herodian 8. 5. 9, — and r]ve(T"^ö^ir)v A. xviii. 14, 
for aveax- (comp. Her. 7. 159, Thuc. 3. 28): this is in exact 
conformity with classical usage, to which the forms with the 
single augment are almost unknown, see Irr. V. s. v. [Jelf 
181, comp. Veitch, Gr. Verbs, s. v.] In 2 C. xi. 1, 4, however, 
the best MSS. have aveiyeaQe? 

8. From epyd^ofxaL we sometimes find in the MSS. r)py., in- 
stead of elpy., as in Mt. xxv. 16, xxvi. 10, Mk. xiv. 6, L. xix. 16, 
A. xviii. 3 (Ex. xxxvi. 4) : this form occurs in a good MS. 
of Demosthenes (Schcef. Appar. V. 553), comp. Sturz p. 125.^ 
Conversely, in L. xvi. 20 good MSS. have elkKcofxevo^ (Lach., 
Tisch.) from ekKovv : comp, also Clem. Al. p. 348- (Sylb.). 

9. The augment is usually omitted in the pluperfect, as he- 
ScoK€L Mk. xiv. 44, XV. 10, Jo. xi. 57, ireiroirjKeLaav Mk. xv. 7, 
{6KßeßXr}K€L xvi. 9), T€6e/jLe\L(0T0 L. vi. 48, fjLefievrjKeLaav 1 Jo. ii. 
19 , 7repL7r€7raTriK€LA.xiv. 8 (see Ysilcken.i7i loc.),'Tr€7rt(TT€v/c€t(Tav 
xiv. 23 ; and in the K T. these forms should probably be pre- 
ferred throughout.* In this tense the augment is often omitted 
by Ionic (Her. 1. 122, 3. 42, 9. 22) and Attic prose writers (e.g. 

1 [Some of these examples are doubtful, but all the forms given above are 
very well attested in some part of the N. T. : the following forms of this verb 
are also found, avo'ilu Mt. xiii. 35 (LXX), dviuyx 1 C. xvi. 9, «vf^y^tvö? A. x. 11, 
linvotyf/.ivo; K. vii. bQ {a.voix,6y.( L. xi. 10), ava/yy'ö-Ojtta/ Mt. vii. 7. — A/axsv.'«^ has 

always ^<»i;t«ya£/y in the N. T.] 

2 [In 2 C. xi. 4 we must read either dnlx^ffh or ä.)iix.i<r6i ; in A. xviii. 14, 

3 [This form is a variant wherever the imperf. or aor. (middle or passive) 
occurs, and is received more or less frequently by Lachra., Tisch., Alf., Ireg-, 
Westcott and Hort. Veitch {Gr. V. s.v.) quotes such forms from inscriptions. 
Comp. MuUach, Vxdg. p. 27.] 

* [Sometimes (as L. xvi. 20, Jo. ix. 22) no MS. omits the augment.] 


Plato), especially when the augmented form would offend the 
ear (Buttm. I. 318) ; hence in compounds particularly (comp. A. 
xiv. 8).-^ Compare Thuc. 8. 92, Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 24 ; and as to 
later ^yriters see especially the Index to Joa. Cinnam. in the 
Bonn ed. (Jelf l7l).' 

10. MvTjareveaOai receives the reduplication (after the ana- 
logy of fMefjbvrjfiac, Buttm. I. 315) in L. i. 27, ii. 5, fiefivrjarev- 
fievTj; but some good MSS. read e/juvrjar. [Lach., Tisch., and 
others] : comp. Dt. xx. 7,xxii. 23 sqq. On pepavnafxevoL H. 
X. 22, see § 13. 1. h. 

In 2 Tim. i. 16, the aor. of the compound cVaio-^wo/xat is in 
the best MSS. l-n-aLo-x^vO-r], without the temporal augment, and recent 
editors have received this form into the text : similarly avop6(o0t] 
L. xiii. 13.3 

Section XIIL 
unusual forms in the tenses and persons of regular 


1. (a) Tenses which in other respects are formed entirely 
after the analogy of the 2 aor. have in the LXX the termination 
(of the 1 aor.) a, etc. :^ thus eWufxev 1 S. x. 14, el^av and ecpvyav 
2 S. X. 14, evpav xvii. 20, e^djafiev xix. 42, eXOdrci) Esth. v. 4 
(Pr. ix. 5, Am. vi. 2, 2 Chr. xxix. 17), etc. In the N. T. recent 
editors have placed these forms in the text, following the best 
MSS.:^ 7]X6aT€, €^7]\6aT€M.t. XXV. 36, xxvi. 55, TrapeXOdrcoMt. 
xxvi. 39, eiXaro 2 Th. ii.l3, e^elXaro A. vii. 10,xii. 11, aye/Xaro 
vii. 21, e^eireaaje G. v. 4, eireaav Eev. vii. 11 (H. iii. 17, Jo. 

' See Georgi, Hierocr. I. 179 ; Poppo, Thuc. I. 228 ; Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 
272 ; Jacob, Luc. Tox. j). 68 ; Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. pp. 2Ö5, 284 ; [Shilleto, 
Dem. F. Lejj. p. 38. Compare Don. p. 201]. 

^ [Mt. vii. 25 is more certain than L. vi. 48 ; in A, xiv. 8 the aorist is the 
hest reading. Comp. lihuKuv 2 S. xviii. 11, ivtßsßyixu Num. xxii. 22, and see 
Tisch. Prolerj. p. 56 (ed. 7).] 

^ [Similar cxainphjs are -rpoopufiuv A. ii. 25 (from LXX), ^npjuriviviv or -nvfiv 
L. xxiv. 27, and (witli less autliority) o/uoid'^nfuv Rom. ix. 29, '^nynpiro Jo. vi, 18, 
a(p«fioiMf/.ivoi II. vii. 3 ; see also 2 Chr. xxxv. 10, and Is. i. 9 in Alex.] 

* See Sturz p. 61 ; Valcken. Herod, p. 649, 91 ; D'Orville, Charit, p. 402 ; 
Wolf, Demosth. Lept. p. 216. 

^ On the MSS. which iiave this fonn .see Hug, Introd. §50 sc^q. ; Scholz, Cur<2 
(Jrit. p. 40; liinck, Lucuhndl. j). 37 ; Tisch. Prok(j(j. ad Cod. Epliraerni p. 21. 
[Scrivener, Critic, p. 489, Cod. /^in. p. liv.J 


xviii. G), aveTreaav eTo. vi, 10, evpdfievo^i H. ix. 12,Epiph. O/?;). 
I. G19, Tlicodoret, %?. 11. 837 (Hal.). Comp. A. ii. 23,xvii. 
Ü [?], xii. 7, xvi. 37, xxii. 7,xxviii. 16, Mt. vii. 13, 25, xi. 7, 8, 
xvii. 6, xxii. 22, L. ii. 16, xi. 52, xxii. 52, Rom. xv. 3, 1 C. x. 8, 
2 C. vi. 17, 1 Jo. ii. 19, Rev. v. 8, 14, vi. 13. 

There is indeed no consistency in the MSS., as regards either 
writers or words ; ^ and in many passages, where such forms 
have the support of but few MSS., they may be due to tran- 
scribers,^ particularly if similar inflexions in a precede or follow: 
see Elmsley, Eur. 3Icd. p. 232 (Lips.), Fritz. Mark,^. 638 sqq. 
It is in the plural and in the 1 st pers. sing, of the indie, that we 
usually meet with these forms; in the 2d sing, indie, the imper.,'' 
and the participle, they occur very rarely. On the instances of 
such aorists in Greek authors (e.g. Orpheus) see Buttra. I. 404. 
In Eurip. Troad. 293, Seidler has changed irpo'^eiTecra into -aov ; 
and in Alcest. 477 (ireaeie), irkaoi is certainly the true reading, 
see Herrn, in loc.^ On the other hand, we find eirecrav Theophan. 
p. 283, Ä:aTe7recra/Ltei^ Achill. Tat. 3. l7,7repL67r6aa/jL6vc. 19; and 
in Eustath. Amor. Ism. I. p. 4 we should read eKTreaete on the 
authority of good MSS., see Jacobs p. 664. Compare further 
Lob. p. 183, Matth. 193. Rem. 5. In the Byzantine writers 
there are undeniably various examples of such forms; as rfKOav 
MalaL18. p. 465, 12.p. 395,az^77\^ai^ 15. p. 389, 7?i^pa/^ei^ 18. 
p. 449, aTrekdare Ducas 24, efeX^are Leo Gr. p. 343, e7ret?eV 
6aTe p. 337 : comp, in general the Index to Ducas p. 639, 
and to Theophan. p. 682 sq. (Bonn ed.).^ 

^ They are mostly verbs which have not a 1 aorist in use. 

2 'AvacTEfra«, which is fouiid in good MSS. in L. xiv. 10, xvii. 7, would neces- 
sarily be the imper. of a similarly formed aor. middle aviTiaüfj^nv. As, however, 
this tense nowhere occurs (though a trace of it appears in the v. I. iKTiircifcivot; 
Polyb. 6. 37. 4), avaTsira/ must probably be considered an error of transcription 
for avcü-^iin, as t and at are often interchanged : indeed the best MSS. have 
-Ti(ri, and this has recently been received into the text. Comp, also Rinck, 
Lucubr. p. 330, [Tisch, on L. xiv. 10, and Proleg. p. 56]. Besides, the 2 aor. 
active is the only tense of ai/aT/Vrw that occurs in the N. T., Mt. xv. 35, Mk. vi. 
40, L. xi. 37, xxii. 14, Jo. vi. 10, al. [The forms in a are now received in Mk. vi, 
Jo. vi.] Fritzsche {Mark, p. 641) considers'na-oi.i to be the 2d sing. fut. (like 
Tkffai) ; but the future would be unsuitable, especially as in L. xvii. 7 impera- 
tives immediately follow. 

^ [In the 2d singular ; but the 3d sing, and 2d plur. are not rare.] 

* But ivfuoiv is distinctly found in a Greek inscription, Böckh II. 220. [In 
Eur. Ale. 477, 'i^iira. is received by Buttm. (II. 278) and by Mullach {Vulg. p. 
226). Comp., however, Veitch, Gr. V. s.v. Ti-rru.] 

^ [The forms in a. are well attested in almost all the examples given above froni 
the N. T, : in H. iii. 17, however, eVt^rev seems certainly the best reading. Rarer 


(h) Augmented tenses of verbs beginning with p are found 
in the best MSS. with a single p (comp. § 5) : as epaß^ladrjv 
2 Cxi. 25, ipdvTiae H. ix. 19 (ipavrco-fiivoL x. 22), ipäiricrav 
Mt. xxvi. 67, ipva-aro 2 Tim. iii. 11 (in A, D), ipvaOT] iv. 17 
(A, C) : comp. 2 K xxiii. 1 8, Ex. v. 2 3, vii. 1 0, Lev. xiv. 7,51, 
Num. viii. 7. Such forms are recognised in poetry (Buttm. I. 
84, Matth. 40, Jelf 176. 1), but also occur frequently in the 
MSS. of prose writers ; see Bast, Comm. Crit. p. 788. In H. 
X. 22 the reduplicated perfect pepavTLcrfievoc is found in A. 
and C, compare pepvircoixeva Hom. Odyss. 6. 59 ; some examples 
of a similar kind are met with in late writers (Lob. Paral, 
p. 13). In Mt. ix. 36 also Lachm. reads pepijiixevou [rather 
pepififjL.'] on the authority of D.^ 

(c) The futures of verbs in c^co are sometimes found (with but 
slight variation in the MSS.) in the contracted form; as fierocKLM 
A. vii. 43, d(f)opLeL Mt. xxv. 32, a(poptov(TL Mt. xiii. 4:^,'yvcopiovav 
Col. iv. 9, Ka6apL€L H. ix. 14, SiaKaOapiel Mt. iii. 12, iXTTLOvcn 
Mt. xii. 21, fiaKapLovac L. i. 48, etc. This is an Atticism, though 
such forms are also found in Ionic Greek ; comp. Georgi, Hier. 
L 29, Fischer, Weiler IL 3 5 5, Matth. 181. 2 (Jelf 203, Don. p. 
182). From ßairTL^co we find only the common form ßairTiaei 
Mt. iii. 11: on arypl^a) see § 15. In the LXX verbs in a^co also 
form the future in the same way; as epyarac Lev. xxv. 40, äpira 
xix. 13, etc. Some have considered yevvoraL Mt. ii. 4, Oecopelre 
Jo. xvi. 17 (since 6y\rea6e follows), ttozw Mt. xxvi. 18, as similar 
Attic futures, from contracted verbs ; but these are all present 

forms are t-^nffo. Eev. i. 17, xix. 10, al., uta, (or 'IIa) Kev. xvii. 6 (jV£<raj 2 S. iii. 
34), ccTYiXoa. Rev. x. 9 ; and the imperrects uxo^^ J^^k. viii. 7 (Rev. ix. 8), Tupu^e^v 
A. xxviii. 2, -Trposiixa-v A. viii. 10 in X. These forms are said to have been 
originally Cilician. See Jelf 192, Mullaeh p. 17 sq., 226, A. Buttm. p. 39 sq.] 

^ [Aw/mmied Tenses. t< has the single p in the passages quoted in the text 
(except 2 Tim. iii. 11). In 2 C. xi. 25, H. ix. 19, 21, Mt. xxvi. ö7, ipc,. is no 
doubt correct : //Vtw occurs twice (Mt. xv. 30, A. xxvii. 19), and pvo/xcti five 
times (2 C. i. 10, Col. i. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 17, 2 P. ii. 7) with the augment, and 
in each case we should probably reject the double p. From p-^irffu (and com- 
pounds) we find both forms : ipp. Mt. xxvi. 65, L. ix. 42, ip. L. v. 6, vi. 48, 49. 
Similarly after a preposition, i^«p/V«vT£j L. xix. 35 (1 P. v. 7, A. xxvii. 43), 
•PTccpapvuf^iv H. ii. 1, )>iupiaeuv \j. viii. 29 (A. xvi. 22, but litcpp. A. xiv. 14, — Mk. 
xiv. 63 is more doubtful), t^/^a^rre/ Mk. ii. 21. 

liedv plicated TenscH. The ordijiary form ipp. is found in L. xvii. 2 (ipptTTxi), 
also in E. iii. 17, Col. ii. 7, A. xv. 29. In Mt. ix. 36 we shouKl read ipiy.fx.ivot. 
In H. X. 22 the reduplication must certainly be received, whether we write pip. 
(Tisch.), or pip. (Laclim., Treg., Westc. and llort), or ftp. (Lobeck, Paral. p. 14). 
In Pev, xix. 13 t< has -ripiptpuuuivov, and (by a later hand) -riciptpuvnTuivov (Don. 
pp. 16, 195, Jelf 176).] ' ' ' '^'^ ' ) n f i- \ 



tenses, see § 40. 2, and comp. Fritz, on Mt. IL cc, Mattli. 181. 
2 a (Jelf 203).' 

{d) Of verbs in aivw, XevKaivco has in the aor. the Attic form 
(Biittm. I. 439) \€VKavat Mk. ix. 3 : in G. iii. 1 several MSS. 
have ißdaKr)va, from ßaaKaivw, — also a correct form. Xrnxaivw, 
however, has iarj/jLava, A. xi. 28, IJev. i. 1 ; see below, § 15. 
The a is also retained in the aor. of ficopalvü) 1 C. i. 20, and 
^rjpalvü) Ja. i. 11, as it regularly is in verbs in -palvco : on 
(pavaL see § 15. (Jelf 222.)=^ 

(c) In particular passages future conjunctives are noted, as 
found in a greater or smaller number of MSS. : thus 1 C. xiii. 3 
Kav6r]aco/jiai (received into the text by Griesbach), 1 P. iii. 1 
Kephrjdi'jo-oiVTat, 1 Tim. vi. 8 apKeaörjacofieOa, — in the last two 
passages without much authority. In tlie better class of writers 
such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lob. p. 721), 
but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thuc. 3. 11 
and 54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there 
is very little in favour of these conjunctives. We find as isolated 
instances evpi^arj^ Eev. xviii. 14, evpyjacjatv ix. 6 (yet an aor. 
evpTjaai is sometimes met with, Lob. p. 721), yvcoacovrac 
A. xxi. 24 (yet compare Lob. p. 735): 6y\rr]a6e, L. xiii. 28, 
and hdiarj, Jo. xvii. 2, are unquestionably aorists.* [See § 15.] 

2. Peculiar person-endings : — 

(a) The 2 pers. sing, of the pies, and fut. passive and middle 
in €L instead of 77 ; as ßovXei L. xxii. 42, irape^et vii. 4 v. L, 
oyjrec Mt. XX vii. 4 and Jo. xi. 40 v. I. : comp, also A. xvi. 31, 
xxiv. 8 V. II. In the two verbs oirreadat and ßovXecrdac this 

1 [A. Buttm. (p. 37) gives a list of verbs which have this future in the N. T. : 

aipopi^u, iXt'iZ.u, -TTecpopyi^tu, Ka.6a,plZ,u, iha.(piZ,w, ju.xxapi'^M, f/.irotxiZ.u), iyytC^u, 

Xpovlt,u, and sometimes KO[jt.lX,ofjt.a.i. To these will be added yvup'iZ,u, if we read 
yMupiovtnv in Col. iv. 9 ; the usual future is yvupiiru. The fut. of XP"^'^'^' how- 
ever, is probably ^P^^''^'" (H. x. 37). On ffTnpiZ,u), tr/tXTi^cu, see § 15. Contracted 
futures are very common in the LXX. On yi^wroci and other presents which 
have been taken for futures, see A. Buttm. p. 38.] 

2 [In G. iii. 1 all the uncial MSS. have ißdcrKccn. Add vretfiecvccn 1 P. v. 2 
{tKKcc^^pr, 2 Tim. ii. 21). See Lob. p. 25 ; Yeitch, Gr. V. pp. 305, 519.] 

3 See'Abresch in Ohstrvatt. Misc. III. p. 13; and as to the later writers 
Niebuhr, Ind. ad Agath. p. 418, and the Index to Theophan. p. 682. 

* [In 1 C. xiii. 3 the oldest MSS. have Kccv^^^ffc^fiec, ; Tisch, and Meyer kxv^^- 
ffe/xKi: Alford and Treg. (Printed Text p. 191) with Bee. xa-vSmuf^cct: comp. 
Scriv. Introd. p. 547. In 1 P. iii. 1, 1 Tim. vi. 8, A. xxi. 24, Rev. xviii. 14 the 
fut. indie, is certainly the true reading ; in Rev. ix, 6 the oldest MSS. have either 
fut. indie, or 2 aor. subj. : even in Jo. xvii. 2 we should probably read the fut. 
indie. See below, p. 95 ; A. Buttm. p. 36 ; Lightfoot, Clem. R. pp. 188, 450.] 


is the form always used by Attic writers (Buttm. I. 348, 
Jelf 196); in others it is of rare occurrence and is almost 
confined to the poets : ^ even in Attic prose, however, it is 
found in good MSS., see Buttmann I. c, but compare Schneider, 
Plat. Civ. I. 49 sqq. Prcef? 

(h) The original un contracted form of the 2 pers. sing, is 
retained in Ivvaaai (Mt. v. 36, viii. 2, Mk. i. 40), as usually in 
classical Greek (Buttm. I. 502): Ivvri—^^k. ix. 22, Ptev. ii. 2, 
and L. xvi. 2 v. If — w^as used by poets alone of earlier writers, 
but is found in later prose, as Polyb. 7. 11. 5, ^lian 13. 32 ; 
see Lob. p. 359. In the N". T. this ending appears also in con- 
tracted verbs; as ohwaaab L. xvi. 25 (^schyl. Cho'eiDli. 354^), 
Kavj^acrai Eom. ii. 17, 1 C. iv. 7, and KaraKav^aaai Eom. 
xi. 18: comp. Georgi, Hier. I. 184, Buttm. I. 347, Boisson. 
Anecd. IV. 479 (Jelf 196). See § 15, s. v. irlvay. 

(c) In the 3 pers. plur. of the perfect, av (from the old ending 
avTi) instead of aai ; as e'yvwKav Jo. xvii. 7, rery prjKav xvii. 6, 
elpriKav Pev. xix. 3, koopaKav (in very good MSS.) L. ix. 36, Col. 
ii. 1, — similarly Eev. xxi. 6, Ja. v. 4 : so also in the LXX, as 
Dt. xi. 7, Judith vii. 10 {Act. Apocr. p. 235). This form belongs 
to the Alexandrian dialect (comp. Sext. Empir. 1. 10. p. 261, 
and the Papyri Taurin. p. 24, KeKvpievKav), but occurs also in 
Lycophron (252, 7re(ppi.Kav), in inscriptions, and often in the 
Byzantine writers (comp. Index to Ducas p. 639, to Codinus, 
and to Leo Gramm.) : see Buttm. 1. 345 (Jelf 191, Don. p. 253). 
Tisch, has received it in all the above N. T. passages :^ in Eev. 
ii. 3, however, he has rejected Ace/coTr/a/ce? (Ex. v. 22 Alex.), the 
reading of A and C. 

(d) The originally iEolic termination eta (em?, ete) instead of 
acfio, in the 1 aor. opt. ; as '\jrr)\a(f)r}a6Lav A. xvii. 27, irocijo-eLav 

1 Comp. Valcken. Eur. Pham. p. 216 sq. (261) ; Fischer, Wellerl. 119, II. 399; 
Geor^'i, J/iei\ I. 34 ; Schwarz, ad Olear. p. 225. 

^ [L. xxii. 42 is the only passage in M'liich this form is well supported.] 

^ On this form, for which some would substitute Stiva, see Porson, Eur. Hec. 
257 ; Schief, and Herrn. Soph. Phil. 787 ; Oiidend. ad 'Thorn. M. p. 252 ; Lob. 
p. 359. [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v. In all these passages, and in Mk. ix. 23, 
duvri is probably the true reading.] 

* [\)ovvci/rcci here is regarded as corrupt : Müller conjectured ov ^uvaa-ai, Harm. 
^vvaircii. This foini is in icgular use in modern Greek : Mullach p. 229.] 

^ [In editions 7 and 8 he. rightly retains th(!se readings : A. xvi. 36, Rom. 
xvi. 7 may be added, lie also receives the ending £? for ay in the 2 pers. sing, 
in Ilev. ii. 3, ii. 4 {»(p^xis), and in the latter passage he has the support of S : 
in Jo. xvii. 7, 8, B has Uuxa.] 


L. vi. 11.^ This form M'as very frequently used (in the 2 and 3 
pers. sing, and 3 pers. phir.) in Attic Greek, as Time. G. 1 Ü, 
8. 6, Aristopli. Plut. 95, Plat. 7iV;?. I. 337 c, Gorg. 500 c, Xen. 
An. 1. 7. 30, al. (Georgi, Hier. I. 150 sq., r>uttm. I. 354 sq., 
Jelf 194), and still more frequently by later writers: see 
Ellendt, Arr. AL I. 353. 

(c) The 3 pers. plur. of the imperative in roxrav occurs re- 
peatedly in the N. T. ; as 'ya^r^adrwaav 1 0. vii. 9 , yafjueLTcoaav 
vii. 36, fiavOavercocrav 1 Tim. v. 4 (Tit. iii. 14) ; comp. A. xxiv. 
20, XXV. 5." Elmsley's opinion,^ that this form was not in use 
before the time of Aristotle, is sufficiently refuted by Mattli. 
(198) and Bornemann (Xen. An. p. 38). 

(/) The 3 pers. plur. of the historical tenses often ends in ocav 
in good MSS. (Buttm. I. 346) ; as elxocrav (for elxov) Jo. xv. 22, 
24, ehihoaav^ (for iSiBouv) xix. 3, irapeXdßoaav 2 Th. iii. 6, and 
in Eom. iii. 13 (from LXX) iSoXiovaav. This termination is 
very common in the LXX and the Byzantine writers; as rj\6oaav 
Ex. XV. 27, i(f)dyoaav Jos. v. 11, KareXiiroaav Ex. xvi, 24, eKpi- 
voaav xviii. 26, eXhoaav Xiceph. Greg. 6. 5. p. 113, KaTrj\6oaav 
Meet. Chon. 21. 7. p. 4:02, fierTjXdoaav Mceph. Bryenn. p. 165, 
Brunck, Analect. XL 47 : comp, also 1 Mace. vi. 31, Cant. iii. 3, 
V. 7, vi. 8, Jos. ii. 1, iii. 14, v. 11, vi. 14, viii. 19, Jud. xix. 11, 
i. 6, Euth i. 4, Lam. ii. 14, Ez. xxii. 11, Ex. xxxiii. 8, al. : see 
Fischer, Weiler II. 336 sq., Georgi, Hier. I. 165 sq., Lob. PhrTjn. 
p. 349, Pathol. I. 485, Sturz p. 58 sqq. In the K T., however, 
with the exception of Eom. /. c, this form is found in a few MSS. 
only, and it may perhaps have originated with the Alexandrian 
transcribers in every case.^ 

3. Erom contracted verbs: — 

(ft) The future eV^ew A. ii. 17, 18 (from LXX), following the 
analogy of liquid verbs (Buttm. I. 469); comp. Ez. vii. 8, xxi. 31, 
Jer. xiv. 16, Hos. v. 10, Zech. xii. 10. If accentuated eK^^w, it 
would be, according to Elmsley, the Attic future : for e/c%ea) is 

^ [In L. vi. 11, recent editors read -unv.'\ 

2 [I believe the form in -vtuv is not given by Tisch., even as a v. I. Similarly, 
in the passive we find -aiutra.v (not -aSuv), as Ja. v. 14, L. xxi. 21.] 

^ Elmsley, Eurip. Iph. Taur. p. 232 (ed. Lips.). 

* [In this verb, however, this is the regular form.] 

^ [This ending is received by Tisch., Alford, and others, in all these passages. 
See Mullach p. 16, who quotes Uxoffav from Scymnus Chius, and the similar 
forms a.(plxi(ra.v, ixafz.ßuviircc}>, fouud in papyri in the Brit. Museum. Such forms 
as i^oXtovffuv (in contr. verbs) are of regular occurrence in modern Greek.] 


both pres. and fut. (Buttm. II. 325, Jelf 245). In the LXX, 
however, other persons occur, and these are circumflexed ; as 
eVp^eet?, eV^^^eetre, Ex. iv. 9, xxix. 12, xxx. 18, Dt. xii. 16. 

(b) From the two verbs Si^frao), ireivdco, the forms in use in 
written (Attic) Greek were Scyjrrjv, ireivi)v, in the infinitive, and 
hi-ylrf)^, hi^lrf), k.tX., in the indicative (Buttm. I. 487, Jelf 239). 
In the N. T. we find instead Scyjrdv, St-i/ra, Eom. xii. 20, Jo. 
vii. 37 ; nreivav Ph. iv. 12, ireiva Eom. xii. 20, 1 C. xi. 21 : these 
forms in a are first found in Aristotle (Anim. 9. 21, comp. 
Sallier ad Thorn. M. p. 699, Lob. p. 61). According to the same 
analogy we find the fut. Treivdaw (for TrecvTjcru)) Eev. vii. 16, 
Jo. vi. So V. I. (Is. V. 27, Ps. xlix. 12), and 1 aor. iireivaaa 
Mk. ii. 25, xi. 12, Mt. xii. 1, 3, xxv. 35, L. iv. 2, ah: both 
these forms are peculiarities of later Greek, see Lob. p. 204.-^ 

(c) Of the verbs in eco which retain e in the future, etc. 
(Lob. Fared, p. 435, Jelf 233), Kokeco and reXeco occur in the 
K T. : thus we find /caXeao), reXtVö) (Buttm. L 386).^ We 
find also (popecro) and ec^opeaa 1 C. xv. 49 (Ecclus. xi. 5, 
Palöeph. 52. 4) : in Greek writers (^opr^aco is the ordinary form 
(so evcpoprjcrev L. xii. 16), but (popeaac is found as early as 
Isaeus : see Irr. V. s. v. cjyepco. On dirokeaw, iTraiveaa), see 
below [§ 15].' 

^ [In the fut. and aor. "^i-^ku is regular ; "hi-^iUffoj very seldom occurs as a 
variant. In Ps. xlix, 12 vnvxtro) is aor. subj. See Veitch, Gr. V. s. vv.] 

2 [These are not the only verbs of this class in the N. T., for tenses with t 
occur from upKta {l-rapx'iu), l/u,ico : of the verbs which have t more partially 
(Jelf 233. 2. c), ivKinu, a,<p- and avcctpiu, Vicd, are found in the N. T. : we might 
add xopivvvf/.!, crßivvv/u.1, {a,f^(pi'i.vvvf^i). On (popiu scc Veitcli, Gr. V. s, v.] 

3 [The present iniin. of verbs in ou sometimes ends in elv in good MSS. Tisch, 
receives this form in Mt. xiii. 32, H. vii. 5 : Westcott and Hort read -o7v in these 
passages, and in Mk. iv. 32, 1 P. ii. 15. On the occasional neglect of contrac- 
tion see § 5. 3.] 


Section XIV. 


1. Verbs \n ^i : — 

(a) Pliiperf. active earrfKecrav llev. vii. 1 1 -i;. /., for earrjKei- 
crav'} comp. ^vvearyjKea-av Thuc. 1.15, €(f)eaT7]K€aav Xen. An. 1. 
4. 4, iwKecrav Heliod. 4. 16, and see especially Jacobs, Achill. 
Tat. pp. 400, 622, Ellendt, Arr. Al. IL 77. 

(b) The 3 pers. plur. present rtOeaac (for TiOelaC) Mt. v. 15, 
irepniOeaaL Mk. xv. 17, eimLÖeaaL Mt. xxiii. 4. This is the 
better and more usual form, comp. Thuc. 2. 34, Aristot. Metaph. 
11. 1, Theophr. Plant. 2. 6 : see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145 sq., 
where many examples are given, and Matth. 210, Schneider, 
Plat. Civ. II. 250 (Jelf 274). Similarly, hthoaai Rev. xvii. 13, 
in the best MSS. ; comp. Her. 1. 93, Thuc. 1. 42. The con- 
tracted forms Ttdelat and (more especially) htZovat, belong to 
later Greek: see Lob. p. 244. 

(c) The 3 pers. plur. imperf. of (a compound of) BlSco/jLl is 
eSlSovv, instead of eBlBocrav, A. iv. 33, xxvii 1, after the analogy 
of contracted verbs ;^ compare Hes. epy. 123. In the singular 
iSlSovu is more common (Buttm. I. 509, Jelf 276). 

(d) On the perf. infin. active eo-rdvat 1 C. x. 12 (a shortened 
form for iarr/Kevac, but very common, and perhaps the only form 
in use), see Irr. V. s. v. ; comp. Georgi, Hier. 1. 1 8 2 sq. (Jelf 3 9).^ 

(e) The imperative pres. passive irepua-raao is found in several 
MSS. in 2 Tim. ii. 16, Tit. iii. 9 ; ä<f>LaTaao 1 Tim. vi. 5 v. I. ; 
irepua-Tco, k.tX., were more usual, see Thom. M. p. 75, Matth. 

(/) There is weighty authority for some forms from a present 
lardo) (Her. 4. 103, as d(f)ccrTdo} Joa. Cinnam. p. 121, i(f)t,aTdco 
p. 65, Kadiardco p. 104) ; as larca/juev Rom. iii. 31, avvL(TTCüVTe<; 

^ [No uncial MS. reads -i^av in Rev. vii. 11. This person "always ends in 
£/<ray, as ^iTot^xiiirav Mk. XV. 7, al., even where in Attic Greek i(rciv alone 
was in use, e.g. ^aua-a.)'. "We find, however, ut- l^-^nrxv A. xvii. 15, al." A. 
Buttmann p. 43.] 

2 [Similarly ir'Jouv A. iii. 2, iv. 35, and perhaps Mk. vi, 56 (but Wirlhtrxy 
A. viii. 17) : this is confined to very late Greek (Veitch, Gr. V. p. 562).] 

^ [Veitch remarks that the longer form in the simple verb seems late {M\. 
Var. Hist. 3. 18), but quotes ä(pi(rT*ix'ivcti from Demosthenes. The later perfect 
iiTTXKa, occurs A. viii. 11 in the infin. l^ta-raKivKi (Jelf 278. 5, Veitch p. 300).] 

* [Tisch, does not give 'tffru as a variant anywhere.] 


2 C. vi. 4, X. 18 (Niceph. Bryenn. p. 41, comp. KaOtarcov Agath. 
316. 2), airofcaeio-ra Mk. ix. 12 (Dan. ii. 21, 2 S. xviii. 12 [in 
some MSS.], Fabric! Fseud. II. 610, ^vpiara Plat. Tim. 33a): 
see Grain. Grceci (ed. Dindorf) I. 251, D'Orville, Charit.^. 542, 
Matth. 210 (Jelf 276). Similarly ifjuimfKoyv (from ifiinTrXdco) A. 
xiv. 17 ; comp. e/jUTrcTTpcov Leo Diac. 2. 1.^ [See Veitcli p. 299.] 

(g) The opt. pres. Swrj for Soir], Eom. xv. 5, 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 
(ii. 7), E. i. 17, iii 16,' Jo. xv. 16 ; aTroScprj 2 Tim. iv. 14 ;^ see 
Gen. xxvii. 28, xxviii. 4, Num. v. 21, xi. 29, al., Themist. Or. 8. 
p. 174 d, Philostr. Apoll. 1.34, Dio Chr. 20. 267, Aristeas p. 120 
(Haverc), al. This is a later form, rejected by the old gram- 
marians (Phryn. p. 345, Moeris p. 117). In Plat. Gorg. 481 a, 
Lysias, c. Andoc. p. 215, t. iv, recent editors have restored Sa>; 
and in Xen. Cgr. 3. 1. 35, Schneider changed Sw?;? into 80/779: 
comp. Lob. p. 346, Sturz p. 52, Buttm. in 3fics. Antiq. Stud. 
L 238.' 

(h) The 2 aor. imper. of ßalvco occurs in a contracted form ; 
avdßa Eev. iv. 1, Kardßa Mk. xv. 30 v.l.; comp. Eurip. El. 113, 
Aristoph. Ach. 262, Vesp. 979, and see Georgi, Hier. I. 153, Irr. 
V. s. V. The longer form is also found, as KardßrjOi Mt. xxvii. 
40, Jo. iv. 49, fjLerdßTjOi vii. 3 : comp. Th. M. p. 495 and Ouden- 
dorp in loc. Quite analogous is dvacrra A. xii. 7, E. v. 14, comp. 
Theocrit. 24. 36, Menand. p. 48 (Mein.), iEsop. 62 (De Furia),— 
also aTToorra Protev. Jac. 2, irapdaTa Act. Apocr. 5 1 : on the other 
hmd,dvd(7TrjdiA.ix.6,34:,€'7rLar7]ei 2Tim.iv.2.^ (Jelf 302,274.) 

(i) The N. T. MSS. vary as to the form of the neuter perf. 
partic. of io-TTjfjn, but 6o-t6<; (iarrjKos:) is the reading of the better 
MSS. in both Mt. xxiv. 15 and Mk. xiii. 14 : this is the form 
found in the oldest and best MSS. of Greek authors {Irr. V. s.v., 

* [In Rec. the form in -aw occurs in Mk. ix. 12, A. viii. 9, xvii. 15, Rom. iii. 
31, 2 C. iv. 2, vi. 4, x. 18 ; -ccvo> in A. i. 6, Eom. vi. 13, 16, 2 C. iii. 1, v. 12, 
X. 12, 1 C. xiii. 2. Lachrn., Treg., and Tisch, read -avu in all these places, 
except 2 C. iv. 2, vi. 4 («n/y/ö-TavTjf), 1 C. xiii. 2 {jUi^ia-rccvan), 2 Cor, iii. 1 (Tisch. 
ffuvia-Tuvuv, Lachm. and Treg. o-uvta-räv) : they also read ffuvurravu in G. ii. 18. In 
all these lifteen i)assages Westcott and Hort ado])t -ecvu.^ 

^ [We sliould read "äuan in 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 14, IcJ in E. iii. 16, Jo. xv. 16. 
In liom. XV. (), 2 Tim. i. 16, 18, we must certainly read the optative (5<iJ»). In 
E. i. 17, 2 Tim. ii. 25, Laclim. Avritcs S<i/>j (for öV")» ^^ ^ snhjnnctlve ; so also 
Tisch, (ed. 7) in Jo. xv. 16. See Eritz.' 7»'om. III. 230, A. Buttm. p. 46, in 
favour oilüvi in these passages ; on the other side, M(!yer on E. i. 17, and below 
§ 41. h. 1. On these forms see Veitch p. 168, Jelf 274.] 

3 This form in the N. T. is the more peculiar, since, wherever it occurs, 
ordinary N. T. usage would require the conjunctive. 

4 [MiToißcc Mt. xvii. 20 : Kxrudaru Mk. xiii. 15, al., avdßart Rev. xi. 12.] 


Don. p. 124) and it is adopted by l^ekker in Plato throughout. 
The uncontracted forms of this participle also occur not unfre- 
quently in good MSS. of the N. T.; as earrjKoTcüv Mt. xxvii. 47, 
Mk. ix. 1, xi. 5, earrjKcoi; Jo. iii. 29, vi. 22, irapeaTrjKoaiv ]\Ik. 
xiv. 69 : these forms have been for the most part received into 
the text.^ 

The conjunctive Swa-y is fairly supported in Jo. xvii. 2, Rev. viii. 3, 
(8(ocra»(nv xiii. 16). This according to some is a Doric form ; it is 
found in Theocr. 27. 21, but has long been repLaced there by the 
correction Soxreu^ In later Greek, however, this form occurs fre- 
quently (Lob. p. 721, comp. Thilo, Apocr. I. 871, Index to Theo- 
phanes), and may probably have been one of the corrupt forms of 
the popular spoken language.^ [Veitch, Gi'. V. p. 169,] 

2. From eliii we find 

{a) The imperat. i^rco for ecrrco (the usual form in the N. T., 
as elsewhere) 1 C. xvi. 22, Ja. v. 12, Ps. ciii. 31,1 Mace. x. 31, 
comp. Clem. AL Strom. 6. 275, Ada Thorn. 3, 7 ; once only in 
Plato {Rep. 2. 361 d), see Schneider in loc, — also /?t. V. s.v. elfil 
(Jelf 286, Don. p. 229). According to Heraclides (in Eustath. 
p. 1411. 22) this is a Doric inflexion. The other imperative form 
co-ec occurs Mt. ii. 13, v. 25, Mk. v. 34, L. xix. 1 7, 1 Tim. iv. 15 
(Buttm. I. 527).' 

(b) "H/ji7]v, 1 pers. sing, imperf. middle (Irr. V. I. c, Jelf 286), 
is rejected by the Atticists, and is common in later writers only 
(who use it especially in conjunction with aV); see Lob. p. 152, 
Schaff. Long. 423, Valcken. in N. T. L 478. In the N. T. it is 
the usual form ; see Mt. xxv. 35, Jo. xi. 15, A. x. 30, xi. 5, 17, 
1 C. xiii. 11, al., and comp. Thilo, Acta Thorn, p. 3: with civ it 

^ ['Es-tos is well attested iu Mt. I.e., Eev. xiv. 1, but Io-tm; has not much 
authority any^vhere : in Mk. xiii. 14 we should probably read la-TnKOTx, and 
itrrnxos is generally received in Rev. v. 6 {-xus i^). The uncontracted forms of 
this partic. (in the simple verb and its compounds) occur frequently, though 
much less frequently than the contracted : in Mk. xiv. 69 Tapio-Tutriv is the best 
reading. ] 

2 [Tisch, still (but see § 13. 1. e) reads ^utrri in Jo. xvii. 2, but '^axrouinv in 
Rev. iv. 9 : iu Rev. viii. 3, xiii. 16, we should probably read ^iua-u and ^cöa-tv.] 

^ [In this verb some other peculiar forms deserve notice : the neuter partic. 
aTToh'Sovv Rev. xxii. 2 (Lachm., Westc. and Hort) ; pres. indie. }i^a Rev. iii. 9 ; 
subj. pres. and aor. (3 sing.) ^/So/"", "^oT, 1 C. xv. 24, Mk. iv. 29, ah (1 Mace. xi. 40, 
see below, p. 360) : all these forms follow the present tense of contracted verbs. 
In A. iv. 35, 1 C. xi. 23, I'^l'^iro (for -oro, in a compound) is strongly supported, 
and there is good authority for lliSiTo Mk. xii. 1, Mt. xxi. 33, al. In Mt. xxi. 
41 Bee. has the peculiar future iK'^oa-iren, but with no uncial MS.] 

* [So also 'iaruffuv L. xii. 35, 1 Tim. iii. 12.] 


is found in G. i. 1 only. The plural rjjxeOa is found twice in Mt. 
xxiii. 30 in very good MSS., and was received into the text by 
Griesb. ; in A. xxvii. 3 7 also Lachm. received it on the authority 
of A and B, but in G. iv. 3, E. ii. 3, it has not much support.^ 
This form occurs in no good writer; see, however, Epiphan. 0pp. 
II. 333, Malal. 16. p. 404. 

(c) For rjaOa, Mk. xiv. 67, MSS. of little weight have ^9,^ a 
form which in Attic Greek is unusual and indeed almost doubtful 
(Buttm. I. 528, Jelf 286). As to later usage see Lob. p. 149 
[and Pathol II. 267]. 

Eem. ^Evt— G. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11, Ja. i. 17 (and in 1 C. vi. 5 
doubtful^), comp. Ecclus. xxxvii. 2 — is usually considered a con- 
traction for eVecrrt : this is the opinion of old grammarians (comp. 
Schob Aristoph. Nuh. 482), and it is defended by Fritzsche (Mark 
p. 642). Buttmann's view however is preferable (II. 375), that 
€VL is the preposition (iv, ivt) with the accent thrown back, used 
without €ti/at, in the same way as eVt, irdpa, etc. The contraction of 
eveo-rt into eve would be very harsh and also without example ; whilst 
Buttmann's view is supported by the analogy of eVt and Trdpa, the 
latter of which can hardly be considered a contraction of Trapecrrt : see 
Krüger p. 25 (Jelf 63, 341). "Evl is very common in Attic Greek, 
both poetry and prose (Georgi, Hier. I. 152, Schwarz, Comm. 486) : 
the poets use it for eVcto-t, as cVt for eWo-t II. 20. 248, Odyss. 9. 126; 
and Trdpa is even joined with the 1 personal pronoun.* 

3. The following forms are connected with the primitive 
verb 'ir]^i : — 

(a) dcpecovTai, Mt. ix. 2, 5, Mk. ii. 5, L. v. 20, 23, vii. 47, 1 Jo. 
ii. 12 [Mk. ii. 9 Ficc, L. vii. 48, and perhaps Jo. xx. 23].^ The 
ancient grammarians do not agree in their explanation of this 
word. Some, as Eustathius (Iliad Q. 5 9 0), consider it equivalent to 
d(f)covTat, as dipey is used by Homer for dcj^Tj. Others, e. g. Ilero- 
dian, the Etym. 3Iar/., and Suidas, more correctly take it as the 
perfect indie, (for dcpeivrac). According to the Etym. Mag. it is 

1 [In all these passages X has «^s^a : tlie other form i^fnv is also found (Rom. 
vii. 6, al.). On i{fji,nv see Veitch p. 199.] 

'^ [*H5 occurs several times, as Mt. xxv. 21, 23, al., sometimes without any 
V. I. ; «T^«, Mt. xxvi. 69, Mk. xiv. 67. The "MSS. of little weight " are some of 
the most important of tJie cursive MSS.] 

^ [Now gen(;rally rec(!iv(Ml. See Kllicott and Lightfoot on G. iii. 28.] 

* The Etym. Mwj. (p. 357) regards ht, not as a contraction for 'inaTi, but as 
used elliptically, the proper person of uvui lacing supplied. — Whether 'iv is ever 
used for t'vi is doubtful (llerni. Soi)h. Track. 1020). 

^ [In Matthew and Mark «.(p'nvTai is probably the true reading.] 


an Attic form, but Suidas is certainly right in ascribing it to 
the Doric dialect:^ this perfect passive follows the analogy of 
the perf. act. a^ewfca. Coiii[). Fischer, de Vitiis Lex. p. 64G sqq., 
Irr. V. p. 145 (Jelf 284). 

{h) "H(i>Le, Mk. i. 34, xi. 16 (Philo, ad Cajam p. 1021), 
is the imperfect (for d(f)L€c), formed from a present acpto) (Eccl. 
ii. 18, a(j)LOfi€v Mt. vi. 12-2;. l.) ; comp, ^vvlov I'or ^vvieaav IL 1. 
273, Irr. V. p. 147. In ?;<^fce the augment is prefixed to the 
prepos., as in other forms of this verb, e.g. r/cpelOTj Plutarch, 
Sidla 28. See Fischer, Well. II. 48 0.^ 

(c) Most MSS. have acj^eOrjaav in Eom. iv. 7 ^ (from Ps. xxxi. 
1) as 1 aor. pass, of acpirj/n : in some MSS. however (of N. T. 
and LXX) we find the augmented form cKpelO-qcrav, which is 
most commonly used by Greek authors {Irr. V. p. 146). 

'Ac^ets (from a root d<^ea)) is now received into the text in Rev. 
ii. 20 (Ex. xxxii. 32), on the authority of good MSS. ; comp, rtöet? 
for riOrj^ (Buttm. I. 506, Jelf 276).^ 

From (TvvLrjixL we have crvvLova-L Mt. xiii. 13 (3 pers. plur.), 2 C. 
X. 12 (3 plur. or dative partic), and the partic. o-vvlu)v Mt. xiii. 
23 V. I (Rom. iii. 11, from LXX, o-wlCjv), instead of o-wict? which 
Lachm. and Tisch, have received into the text [in Mt. xiii. 23]. The 
first form (o-wtouo-t) belongs to a root o-vvuo), from which we also 
find an infin. o-wtetvin Theogn. 565 : the participle, which is particu- 
larly common in the LXX (1 Chr. xxv. 7, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12, Ps. xl. 2, 
Jer. XX. 12), is perhaps more correctly written orwtwv, from ctvvlo) ; 
see above [on -^^te], and Buttm. I. 523. Lachmann accordingly 
writes crvvLovcn in Mt. xiii. 13 : see on the whole Fritz. Bom. I. 
174 sq.** 

^ [" A Dorism not confined to the N. T. but somewhat widely diffused, and 
received even by Attic writers : see Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 344 ; Bredow, DlnL 
Herod, p. 395." A. Buttm. p. 49. Veitch (p. 293) quotes äv£^<r^a/ from Tab. 
Heracl. 1. 105. See also Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. Ixxiv.] 

2 [The root -lu is implied by the forms v(pnv, aip/o/Asv (L. xi. 4), ä.ipiov<n (Rev. 
xi. 9), «.(plovTctt (Jo. XX. 23, Westcott and Hort, and elsewhere as a v. I.). 
Under this head will come (xw'iovtn (Mt. xiii. 13), trwiuv (Rom. iii, 11) if thus 
accentuated, as by Lachm., Treg. , Westc. and Hort ; also, according to the last- 
named editors, ö-yv/«<^/ (Mk. iv. 12, L. viii. 10). In 2 C. x. 12 we should read 
ffvyixiri, in Mt. xiii. 23 ffwnlg : in Mk. iv., L. viii., most editors read ffv^mai, the 
ordinary form. Tisch, treats several of these words as belonging to a root -nu : 
ö-üwÄJv (Rom. iii. 11, and in LXX), avtiov<n (Mt. xiii. 13), au^nli -il -uv (Job xv. 
9, Pr. xxi. 12, Jer. ix. 24, al.), «.ipiü -uv (Eccl. ii. 18, v. 11). See Veitch pp. 104, 
291, 304, Jelf 283 sq.] 

' [No uncial MS. inserts the augment here, or in äcs^«, A. xvi. 26.] 

* [In Her. 2. 165 most MSS. have äviovron, and aipiovrat is sometimes a, v.l. 
in good MSS. of the N. T. : in Mk. viii. 17, B has trvvun. Mullach ( Vulg. pp. 24, 
38, 50) quotes the pres. K(pöj from a Nubian inscrij^tion of the 3d or 4th century 
{Corp. Inscr. IIL p. 486), and from a MS. of the 7th century.] 

^ [In modern Greek, verbs in u take the place of those in f^i ; thus ^i'^u/u.4, 


4. The imper. of Kadrj/jiao is (not KaOrjcro, but) kclOov in Mt. 
XXÜ. 44, L. XX. 42, A. ii. 34, Ja. ii. 3 (1 S. i. 23, xxii. 5, 2 K. 
ii. 2, 6, al.) : only in Mk. xii. 36 Tisch, has received KaOcaov on 
the authority of B. Kddov never occurs in the earlier Greek 
authors, and is therefore reckoned a corrupt form by Moeris 
(p. 234) and Thorn. Mag. (p. 485).^ Similarly KaOy for KaOrj- 
aai A. xxiii. 3 ; see Lob. p. 395, Greg. Cor. p. 411 (ed. Schsef.). 
[Lob. Fathol IL 129, Jelf 301.] 

Section XV. 


We find in the N. T. several verbal forms, framed indeed 
according to rule, but rejected as unclassical by the ancient 
grammarians because they do not occur in Greek authors, or 
occur only in the later. In particular, we often meet with the 
active form of the future in verbs which in better writers have 
the middle form instead, see Buttm. IL 84 sq.. Monk, Eur. Ale. 
159, 645 : ^ this point, however, needs closer examination. The 
following list contains all the forms which have been declared 
unclassical. Those in regard to which the grammarians, espe- 
cially Thomas Magister and Moeris, have manifestly been too 
fastidious, are marked with an asterisk.^ 

d<y^€Xko). The 2 aor. active and passive are rare in the better 
writers, and in many places doubtful (Buttm. IL 94 sq., Irr. V, 
s. V.) ; yet see Schoef. Demosth. III. 175, Schoem. Isceus p. 39. 
In the N. T. we find ävrjjjeXT] 1 P. i. 12 and Eom. xv. 21 
(from LXX), BiayyeXfj Eom. ix. 17 (from LXX), KarrjyyiXTj 
A. xvii. 13. [See Veitch, Gr. V. p. 5.] 

«.(p'lr.fjLt, are replaced by Vi^ca), «.(plvu, and similaily x,a,6nf^ot'i by xa.Sof/.a.i (Mullach 
p. 261). Compare also (ttyivu with 'httuvu {'{(ttjiju,!).] 

' [Veitch (p. 307) quotes jcd^ov from comic writers (Meincke, Fraqm. Com. 2. 
1190, 3. 167, al.) and late prose. In L. xxii. 30 there is considerable authority 
for a future KuMffivh (1 S. v. 7, al.), which is quoted by the same writer from 
Eur. Fray. 77.] 

'^ [Compare the lists in Jelf 321, Don, p. 270 sq. This r^Terence is not 
repeated in each case. Sec also Veitch, Orcclc Verbs, s. vv.] 

^ [Winer incloses these words within brackets : the asterisk is here used 
instead, to avoid amlji^uity. As xpi/j-otfiai and iXiau were manifestly placed 
within brackets for a diifenint reason, the asterisk is not inserted before these 
yerbs : possibly it should be omitted before fjuccivu also.] 


ayvvfiL. Oil the fiit. KaTed^et Mt. xii, 20, aor. Karea^a, see 
§ 12. 2. 

^'ayco. On the 1 aor. ^^a, wliich occurs 2 P. ii. 5 in the 
compound iird^a^;, see /rr. V. p. 9, Lob. pp. 287, 735 [Veitch, 
Gr. F. p. 13 sq.]. In compounds tliis tense is not rare (2 S. 
xxii. 35, 1 Mace. ii. 67, Index to Malal. s. v. ayco, Schtef. Lidex 
ad ^sop. p. 135), even in good prose writers, Her. 1. 190, 
5. 34, Xen. ffelL 2. 2. 20, Thuc. 2. 97, 8. 25. 

''^'aipeo). The fut. eXco (Rev. xxii. 19, in the compound 
a(f)e\co^), is rare, see Buttm. II. 100 ; it is found however in 
Agath. 269. 5, and frequently in the LXX, as Ex. v. 8, Num. 
xi. 17, Dt. xii. 32, Job xxxvi. 7; comp, also Menand. Byz. 
p. 316. Against Eeisig,^ who claims this form for Aristophanes 
and Sophocles, see Herm. (Ed. Col. 1454, and Eurip. Hel, 
p. 127. 

'''dfcovco. Fut. cLKova-w (for dKovaoiiai) Mt. xii. 19, xiii. 14, 
Eom. X. 14 \_Rcc.\ Jo. xvi. 13 : aKovaoixai, however, is the more 
common future in the N. T., especially in Luke, see A. iii. 22 
(vii. 37), xvii. 32, xxv. 22, xxviii. 28 (Jo. v. 28). 'AKovaoi 
occurs not only in poets (Jacobs, Anthol. G-r. III. 134, Orac. 
Sihyll. 8. 206, 345), but occasionally also in prose authors of 
the KOLvvj, as Dion. H. 980. 4 (Reiske).^ In the LXX comp. 
Is. vi. 9, 2 S. xiv.Jl6. 

äWo/juac varies in the aorist between yXdfjLrjv and rjXofMTju 
(Irr. V. s. v.). In A. xiv. 1 both these forms are found in the 
MSS. (and even with X doubled), but rjKaTo has most authority.^ 

d/jLaprdpco, dfiapreo). The 1 aor. rj/idprrjo-a for 2 aor. rjfMap- 
Tov, Eom. V. 14, 16, Mt. xviii. 15, L. xvii. 4, Eom. vi. 15 (IS. 
xix. 4, Lam. iii. 41),^ Th. M. p. 420, Lob. p. 732 ; see however 
Diod. S. 2. 14 d/jLapTi]<7a<;, Agath. 167. 18.^ The fut. active 
also, dfjLapT7]<Tco (Mt. xviii. 21, Ecclus. vii. 36, xxiv. 22, Dio C. 

^ [L. xii. 18 x.cchx^, 2Tli. ii. 8 uviXu -, see Dion. H. Ant. 9. 26, Diod. S. 2. 25 
(Veitch s. v.). On avxkoT, the reading of K in 2 Th. ii. 8, see Veitch, p. 61.] 

2 Conun. Grit, in Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 365. 

3 Comp. Schae.f. Dem. II. 232, Wurm, Dinarch. p. 153, Bachmann, Lye. I. 92. 
[Mt. xii. 19, xiii. 14, A. iii. 22, xxviii. 26, are from the Old Testament. The 
best texts have -tru in John (v. 25, 28, x. 16), -(to/axi in Acts (xvii. 32, xxi. 22, 
XXV. 22, xxviii. 28.] 

* [In A. xix. 16 tlie best texts have iipa.Xofx.ivo?.'] 

^ Still the 2 aor. rifji.ot.pTov predominates in the LXX : see especially 1 K. viii. 

47, Vfioe.pTO/u.iVj rivof/,rt(TCCfx,iv^ ridiKr,(Tce./j(,iy. 

' [" In the N. T. we find without exception the seeond aorist in the indie, 
the^'m aorist partic. ; in the conj. both forms occur : " A. Buttm. p. 54.] 


59. 20), is not very common: compare Monk, Eur. Ale. 159, 
Poppo, Time. III. iv. 361.^ 

"^dve^ofxao. Fut. dve^ofiac Mt. xvii. 17, Mk. ix. 19, L. ix. 41, 
2 Tim. iv. 3, — for which Mceris from pure caprice would have 
dva(7'^T](To/jLao : dve^o/jbat occurs very frequently, comp. e.g. Soph. 
Mectr. 1017, Xen. Cyr. 5. 1. 26, Plat. Fhccdr. 239 a. 

dvoiyco, 1 aor. rjvot^a Jo. ix. 17 \_Rcc^, 21, al, for dveco^a 
(but comp. Xen. Hell. 1. 5. 13) ; 2 aor. pass. r)voi<y'r]v Eev. xv. 5. 
See § 12. 7. 

diravTaco. Fut. d7ravT7](70) (for diravrijaofMai) Mk. xiv. 13 
(Diocl S. 18. 15) : see Irr. V. p. 33, Matth. Eur. Su2Jp. 774. 

diroKTelvay. The 1 aor. direKTavOr], diroKTavOrjvat, Pev. ii. 13, 
ix. 18, 20, xi. 13, xiii. 10, xix. 21, Mt. xvi. 21, L. ix. 22, al.; 
comp. 1 Mace. ii. 9, 2 Mace. iv. 36. This form occurs indeed 
in Homer,^ but belongs peculiarly to later prose, as Dio C. 65. 
c. 4, Menander, Hist. pp. 284, 304 (ed. Bonn) ; see Buttm. II. 
227, Lob. pp. 36, 757.^ The un- Attic perf. direKTayKa occurs 
2 S. iv. 11 [Itt. V. p. 200). 

diröWviiL Fut. dTToXeaco Mt. xxi. 41, Mk. viii. 35, Jo. vi. 39, 
xii. 25 [i^cc] ; comp. Lucian, Asin. 33, Long. Pastor. 3. 17 
(Buttm. II. 254, Irr. V. p. 238) ; but see Lob. p. 746. In 1 C. 
i. 19 we find the ordinary form dnrdXo)^ 

1 \^Afji,(pnvvv[jt.i. In L. xii. 28 good MSS. have oi.f^<pnZ,it (Pint. C. Graccli. 2) 
for -ivvuirt. Lachmann, Westcott and Hort read uy-iptaZ^n with B ; comp. a.7ty}f^!plBcZ,% 
riut. Mor. 340, Job xxix. 14, xl. 5 : see A. Buttm. p. 49, Veitch p. 58.] 

'^ [Not in Homer, see Lobeck on Buttmann I. c. , Lidd. and Scott s. v. : see 
also Veitch, Gr. Verbs, pp. 79, 349. In 2 Mace. I. c. we find the perfecty 

^ In Rev. vi. 11 we find a.To}iTivvsir&cn {v. I. aTOKrivitr^Kt), and in 2 C. iii. 6 
(Rev. xiii. 10) a-^roK-riwn {v. I. a-roxrivii). This form is considered iEolic, since 
the iEolians were accustomed to change u into s before X, ^, v, p, a-, doubling 
the following consonant, e.g. ktswu for x-nlvu, ir-n'ppM for a-Tiipno ; see Koen, 
Gregor. Cor. pp. 587, 597 (ed. Scluef.), Matth. 14. 6, and comp. Dindorf, Praf. 
ad Aristopli. XII. p. 14. In Tob. i. 18 and Wis. xvi. 14 also we find this form 
amongst the variants. We must not (with Wahl) assume the existence of a 
present aTrox-rivu for Mt. x. 28, L. xii. 4, xiii. 34 : uToKnvovTuv (if we do not 
regard it as an aorist partic, see Fritz. Matt. p. 383) may be a corruption of 
ä-TrcKTivvovTuv, wldcli is the reading of a few good MSS., and which is received 
by Lachm. and in part by Tisch. See further Bornem. Luc. p. 81. [The 
form -ivvu is received by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Alford, in Mt. x. 28, Mk. xii. 5, 
L. xii. 4, 2 C. iii. 6, Rev. vi. 11 (except 2 (3. iii. 6, Lachm.). In Rev. vi. 11 
Westcott and Hort receive -iwu, Itut in Mk. xii. 5 they have the strange form 
a-^ox-TivvvvTii. None of these (ulitors receive -evu. In 2 0. iii. 6, Rev. xiii. 10, 
Lachm. adopts ("de conjectura," Tisch. II. cc.) dToxrutvu, on which see A. 
Buttm. p. 61.] 

■* [1 C. i. 19 is from the LXX. In Jo. vi. 39 utoXio-m is 1 aor. subj., but this 
future often occurs in the N. T. Tlie fut. midd. is always ccTrokovf^xi.] 


apTrd^o). Aor. ypTrdyyjv 2 C. xii. 2, 4, for ijpirdaOrjv (I lev. 
xii. 5), Th. M. p. 424, Mccr. p. 50, Buttm. I. 372 (Jelf 212. 
6) : fut. dpTray/jaofjLac 1 Th. iv. 17. (Also äpirdaw, for dpird- 
aofiai, Jo. X. 28 : this is said to be a rare form, but it occurs 
as early as Xen. 3Tag. Eq. 4. 17.) 

*av^dv(o. The primitive form av^w, E. ii. 21, Col. ii. 19, 
is often found in Plato and Xenophon (Malth. 224). 

ßapeco. From this root we find not only ßeßapn^fxhof; (Mt. 
xxvi. 43, L. ix. 32), but also, contrary to Attic prose usage 
{Irr. V. p. bl), ßapoviievoL 2 C. v. 4 (IMk. xiv. 4:0), ßapeiadco 
1 Tim. V. 16, and the aor. ۧap7]6r]v L. xxi. 34, 2 C. i. 8 : 
for the last tense, ißapvvdrjv (L. xxi. 34 v.l.) was used in the 
written language.-^ 

ßaa-Kalvci). The 1 aor. (G. iii. 1) is eßdcrKave in Rec, but 
in many [cursive] MSS. eßdaKrjve (without i subscript), comp. 
Buttm. I. 438 : the latter occurs in Dio C. 44. 39, Herodian 
2. 4. 11, and in later writers. 

ßcoo). 1 aor. infin. ßtwaac 1 P. iv. 2, for which the 2 aor. 
ßicopat is more usual in Attic Greek (Buttm. II. 129 sq.. Irr. 
V. s. v.) ; ßccoaat occurs however Aristo t. Nie. 9. 8, Plutarch, 
0pp. IL 367 sq., and oftener in compounds (Steph. TJies. II. 
260, ed. Hase). The other forms of the 1 aor. are more 
common, especially the partic. /Stcoö-a?. 

ßXaardvco. Aor. ißXdarrjaa for eßXaarov Mt. xiii. 26, Ja. 
V. 18 (Gen. i. 11, Xum. xvii. 8, al., Acta A2Jocr. i^. 172); 
comp. Buttm. II. 131 (Jelf 255). From the time of Aristotle 
tlie 1 aor. is not uncommon in the written language (Steph. 
TJies. II. 273).' 

*yafxeco. Aor. iydfiTjaa Mk. vi. 17, Mt. xxii. 25 [Bcc.'], 1 C. 
vii. 9, instead of the older form eyrj/xa (from yd/jLoy) L. xiv. 
20, 1 C. vii. 28 (see Georgi, Rier. I. 29, Lob. p. 742): yet 
iydfjLr)cra is found (if not in Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 20) in Lucian, 
Dial. Dcor. 5. 4, Apollodor. 3. 15. 3. Better attested is 
iyafMJjOrjv Mk. x. 12 (where however the reading is doubtful), 
1 C. vii. 39 (Lob. p. 742). 

^ [In Mk. xiv. 40 recent editors receive xce.Taßxpvvof^.ivoi, the only instance iu 
the N. T. of this form of the present. ] 

2["Conj. pres. ßka<rrZ, Mk. iv. 27, from a cognate form /SXairr««./, another 
example of which is hardly to be found ; comp. Schol. Find. Py. 6ä.xXii »a) 
ßXa.ffrS. : " A. Buttm. p. 48. Yeitch quotes ßXaffrZvTcc from Hermas, Past. p. 57 
(p. 83; ed. Hilgenf.).] 


yeXdco. Fut. jeXdcrco (for yeXdcrofjiac) L. vi. 21; see Buttm. 
II. 85, Irr. V. s. v. 

fyi'yvoiJLai. Aor. pass. i'yevrjOr^v} used for iyevofirjv, A. iv. 4, 
Col. iv. 11, 1 Th. ii. 14, al; comp. Th. M. p. 189. This form, 
originally Doric, is often found iu writers of the kolvj] (Lob. 
p. 109, Irr. V. p. 64).' 

BiBcofiL The 1 aor. eBcoKa is avoided by Attic writers in 
the 1 and 2 pers. plur., the 2 aor. being used instead (Buttm. 

I. 509, Jelf 277. 2). In the N. T., however, we find iSwKafiev 
1 Th. iv. 2, iScoKare Mt. xxv. 35, G. iv. 15, al., as in Demos- 
thenes. On Booar) see § 14. 1. Eem.^ 

*BtdoKü). Put. Biw^cd (for Bico^ofiai) Mt. xxiii. 34, L. xxi. 
12 (/rr. F". p. 89) : comp, however Dem. Nausim. 633 c, 
Xen. An. 1. 4. 8 (and Krug, in loc), Cyr. 6. 3. 13. 

Bvva/iat. It is only necessary to remark that, beside iBv' 
vrjdrjv, the Ionic form i^BvvdcrOrjv (with augment rj) is given 
amongst t';e variants in Mt. xvii. 16, as found in B ; see Buttm. 

II. 155.^ 

Bvco, Bvvco. In Mk. i. 32 some good MSS. have the 1 aor. 
eBvcra, which in earlier Greek has only a causative signification 
{Irr. V. p. 92).^ Another form of the 1 aor. is found L. iv. 40 
{BvvavTo<;) in some inferior authorities : this also occurs in ^1. 
4. 1, Pausan. 2. 11. 7.' 

e'lBo) know. Perf. olBa^ev (for lafiev) Mk. xi. 33, Jo. iii. 2, 
1 C. viii. 1, al. (Poppo, Xen. An. 2. 4. 6) ; oiBare (IVre) Mk. x. 

^ [It has sometiines been maintained that lytvrjyiv has a passive meaning; 
against this see Meyer on 1 C. i. 30, Ellicott on Col. iv. 11.— In the N. T., as 
might be expected, yivof^ai is always found, not ylyv. ; similarly ytvuffxn).] 

'^ [From iyvuv, 2 aor. of ytvug-Ku, we find yvoTMk. v. 43, ix. 30, L. xix. 15, in 
the best texts (Herrn. Mand. 4, in J^) ; this is variously regarded as subj. (A. 
Buttm. p. 46), or optative (Tisch. Proleg. p. 57, ed. 7) : comp. lo7, p. 95, and see 
below, p. 360. — Aeo^«/ has the peculiar imperfect i^iuro L. viii. 38 in Lachmann's 
text ; on this form (which is not well attested) see A. Buttm. p. 55.] 

^ [A. Buttm. remarks (p. 46) that the 2 aor. is only found once in the indie. 
(L. i. 2), \)\xi tliat tlie other moods are regularly formed from the 2 aor. Veitch 
quotes ilJjKUfjLiv from Kur. (hjcl. 296, Xen. An. 3. 2. 5, Hell. 6. 3. 6, al.] 

* [Buttm. /. c. remarks that tliis form (with the augm. >j) is confined to Hel- 
lenistic Greek : Tiscli. now receives this form in Mk. vii. 24 (Jos. xv. 63). It is 
a v./. in Her. 7. lOG (Veitcli s. v.).] 

°[B has -rupinthvyKrav in Judo 4. The present form Xvhihvtrxu, Mk. xv. 17, 
L. xvi. 19 (L. viii. 27, Lachm.), 2 S. xiii, 18, al., is unknown in earlier Greek : 
see Fritz. Mark, p. 681.] 

^ ['E^eXiw : in the N. T. we have always HoiXov, *ifiX*i(Tx, but in the present 
fi'ikc^. (A. Buttm. p. 57.)] 


38, xiii. 33, 1 C. ix. 13, rii. iv. 15 ; otSaa-iv (^laaai) L. xi. 44, 
Jo. X. 5 ; see Buttm. I. 546 (Jelf 314) : comp, however 
Aristoph. Av. 599, Xen. (Ec. 20. 14. The 2 pers. sing, olha^ 
(for olaOa) 1 C. vii. 16, Jo. xxi. 15, is rather Ionic and Doric, 
yet it occurs Her. 4. 157, Xen. Mem. 4. 6. 6, Eurip. ^/c. 790, 
and frequently in later Greek (Lob. p. 236). The 3 pers. 
plur. pluperf. is rjBetcrav Mk. i. 34, Jo. ii. 9, xxi. 4, al., for 
fiBeaap (Buttm. I.' 547).^ [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.] 

elirelv (2 aor. elirov). The 1 aor. elira occurs in the N. T. in 
the 2 pers. sing., Mt. xxvi. 25, Mk. xii. 32, and frequently. This 
person is also found in Attic writers, as Xen. CEc. 19. 14, Soph. 
CEd. Col. 1509 (along with etTre?, which is often used by Plato), 
but is originally Ionic ; see Greg. Cor. p. 481 (ed. Scha:?f.), Schae- 
f er, Dion. H. p. 436 sq. The imperative elirare Mt. x. 27, xxi. 
5, Col. iv. 17, elTTCLTwaav A. xxiv. 20, is also very common in 
Attic Greek (Plat. Lach. 187 d, Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 28). Besides 
these forms, we find the following in good MSS. : 3 pers. plur. 
indie, elirav Mt. xii. 2, xvii. 24, Mk. xi. 6, xii. 7, 16, L. v. 33, 
xix. 39, XX. 2, A. i. 11, 24, vi. 2, xxviü. 21, al. (Diod. S. 16. 
44, Xen. Hell. 3. 5. 24, al., v. I.) ; partic. etVa? (which is mainly 
Ionic) A. vii. 37, xxii. 24 ; and even the rarer 1 pers. elira H. 
iii. 10 [Lachm.], A. xxvi. 15, for which elirov is generally used 
in the N. T. : see Sturz p. 61.^ Eecent editors have accepted 
these forms wherever they are attested by several MSS. In 
compounds we find a7reL7rdfjLr}v 2 C. iv. 2 (Her. 6. 100), and 
TTpoelirafiev 1 Th. iv. 6.^ Elirov — not etrrov, see § 6. 1. k. — 
which occurs in good MSS. A. xxviii. 26, is to be regarded as a 
2 aor. imper. ; the same form now stands in the text in Mk. xiii. 
4, L. X. 40, whilst in other passages elwi has more authority.* 
The 1 aor. pass, of this verb, ipprjOriv (from peco, Irr. F". p. 1 1 2) 
is sometimes written ippidrjv in N. T. MSS., e.g. Mt. v. 21, 31, 
33 ;^ this form is often found in the MSS. of the later (non- Attic) 

^ ["We find Itrairt in A. xxvi. 4, Ittrri (indie, or imper.) E. v. 5, al. ; the 2 pers. 
sing, pluperf. is always v^m. For iT^ov, Tiscli. sometimes reads "hv (Rev. vii. 1, 
al. ), il'^cc (Rev. xvii. 6).] 

- eTtäv also occurs in the well known Rosetta inscription, at the end of line 8. 

^ Comp. Ü7ra//,iv 1. Turin. Papyr. p. 10. [On ü-raf^iv smd tirccTuffav, see Veitch 
s. v.] 

* [In most of the instances cited these forms are now generally received, and 
also in other passages, as tWa Mk. ix. 18, iitov L. xx. 2, al. (see above, p. 58).] 

^ [Recent editors agree in reading ippiPr,v in Rom. ix. 12, 26, G. iii. 16, Rev. 
vi. 11, ix. 4 : in Mt. v. (six times) Lachm. and Treg. read Ipprjtiv, but Meyer, 


Avriters, and here and there in Attic (Lob. p. 447), — but not in 
Plato, see Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 5 sq. [Veitch, Gr. V. 
p. 509.] 

iKyeco: later form eK^vvw^ (Lob. p. 726). The future is 
iK'xeoi for eK')(evaa) (Buttm. I. 396, Irr. F. p. 336) : see 
§ 13. 3. 

(iXedco for iXeico occurs in certain good MSS. in several 
passages of the N. T., as iXecovro^, eXea Eom. ix. 16, 18, eXeare 
Jude 23 : also in Clem. Al. p. 54 (Sylb.) the Florentine edition 
has iXea. Compare further the Etym. Mag. 327. 30.^ A simi- 
lar form is iWoyav Eom. v. 13, Phil. 18, which also is found 
in good MSS.: in Phil. 18 Lachmann has received it into the 
text, and after him Tischendorf. Pritzsche, Bo7n. I. 311, de- 
clares all these forms mistakes of transcription.^) 

eXKco. Prom this root we find a present and imperf., Ja. ii. 6, 
A. xxi. 30, as in Greek authors regularly ; but instead of the fut. 
eXfö) (Matth. 233), the less usual eXKvaco from the other form 
eXKvco, Jo. xii. 32 ; comp. Job xxxix. 10. 

''' eTraLveco. Put. eTraiveaco 1 C. xi. 22, for eiraiviaoixau 
(Buttm. I. 388); comp, however Xen.^7i. 5. 5. 8,Himer. 20 : 
in this verb indeed the fut. active is not uncommon. See 
Brunck, Gnom. pp. 10, 64, Schsef. Dem. II. 465, Stallb. Plat. 
Symp. p. 139. [Veitch, Gr. F. p. 226 : comp. Shilleto, Dem. F, 
L. p. 31.] 

'''iTTLopKect). Put. iTTLopKTjaco ioi iiTLopKT] a fiat Mt. V. 33 : see 
Buttm. IL 85. 

ep'x^ofjLac. The fut. ekevaoixai, both in the simple verb and 
in its compounds, is of frequent occurrence in the N. T. : it is 

Tisch,, AVestcott and Hort adopt ifpiönv, whicli X and B have in every instance 
(except Mt. v. 21 in B). The partic. is uniformly pviSus, without a variant.] 

^ [The best MSS. double the v in the present, as iKxvvvou.ivov Mt. xxiii. o5, al., 
and this form is now generally received : comp. a.-zoTcrivvu above.] 

2 ["'liX£&i X.U.TU, fJlXv Tohs 'ATTiKOUS 'TT fUJTni tTvl^UyiOCS T(WV '^ipiff'TTUfiiVUV, iXiiTs, . . . 
XCCTU 61 T'/IV Kotvriv^ OiVTipui. J 

^ I'EXtuu is very strongly supported in Rom. ix. 16, but not in ver. 18. In 
cd. 7, Tisch, received -a&» in both verses ; Lachm., Treg., Alford (doubtfully), 
Tisch, (ed. 8), Westcott and llort, read Ixa? in ver. 18. Fritzsche and Meyer 
retain -iu in both verses, urging that different forms would not be used in the 
same passage : see, however, page 107, note ^. h\ favour of iXkoyav (Phil. 18, 
and ])robably Bom, v, 13) see Meyer and Ellicott on Bhil. 18, Some instances 
of the substitution of -iu for -du are found in good MSS, Tisch, and others 
leceive 'Äpurow Mt, xv. 23 (Mk. iv, 10) ; and the i)articij)le of vixiu in Kev. ii. 
17 (see also ii. 7, xv. 2). Compare Mullach, Vul(j. p. 252, and (A. Buttm. in) 
Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 188,] 


principally met with in later prose (Arr. Al. G. 12, Philostr. 
Apoll. 4. 4, Dio Chr. 33. 410, Max. Tyr. 24. p. 295), elfii being 
used instead in Attic Greek (Phryn. p. 37, Th. M. pp. 88, 336). 
In earlier writers, however, iXevaofiat is not at all uncomnion, 
as Her. 1. 142, 5. 125, Lys. Banian. 12 (p. 233, Bremi). See 
in general Lob. p. 37 sq., Sch<Tf. iSb/A II. 323, and comp. 
Elmsl. Eur. ffcracl. 210. For r^PX^M^^ C^J^l^'- i- 45, ii. 13, Jo. 
iv. 30, vi. 17, al.), Attic writers commonly use tlie imperf. of 
eliJLL [Irr. V. p. 134) — but see Bornem. Luc. p. 106, and comp. 
Time. 4. 120, 121, Xen. An. 4. 6. 22 ; and for epxov, e>x^ö-(9e, 
Jo. i. 47, the imper. of el/zt (J6u, Ire). The partic. cp^o^evo^ 
also is said to be rare in the earlier Attic writers {Irr. V. I. c), 
yet it occurs in Plat. Crit. c. 15.^ 

iaOlo). From the poetical form eaOco (Irr. V. p. 136) we 
find eaOcov amongst the v. II. in Mk. i. 6, L. vii. 33, 34, x. 7, 
XX. 47, xxii. 30 [eaOrjre] ; and Tisch, has received it into the 
text on the authority of (a few) good MSS. : see his Prcef. 
p. 21 (ed. 2).^ In the LXX comp. Lev. xvii. 10, xix. 26, 
Ecclus. XX. 16. 

evpLaKQ). Aorist middle evpdfirjv, for evpofirjv, H. ix. 12 
(Pausan. 7. 11. 1, 8. 30. 4, al, comp. Lob. p. 139 sq.): see 
§ 13. 1. A 1 aor. evprjaa seems implied in the conjunctives ev- 
pWV^ -^6^- xviii. 14, evp7](7(oaiv ix. 6 (as at least several MSS. 
read), unless we consider these to be future conjunctives (§ 13. 
1). Lobeck however (p. 721) quotes a participle evp/jaavTo^;. 

^dco. Future ft^o-cü Ptom. vi. 2, 2 C. xiii. 4, Jo. vi. 51, 57, 
58 {Gvl;i]a(o Ptom. vi. 8, 2 Tim. ii. 11): ^r^Vo/xat Mt. iv. 4, Mk. 
V. 23,^ Jo. vi. 51, xi. 25, al.: 1 aor. e^T^aa Kev. ii. 8, L. xv. 24, 

^ [On 'hpxöf^^v see Don. New Crat. p. 651, but compare Veitcli s. v. El^/ is 
not found in the N. T., and occurs once only in the LXX, "61 Pr. vi. 6 ; the 
compounds are sometimes found, chiefly in Acts (A. Buttm. p. 50).] 

2 ^nxh for i>.r,Xv6i, G. iv. 4, Jo. xix. 39, al., is too hastily rejected by Thorn. 
Mag. (p. 418) ; see Sallier in he. [The note of Thom. :Mag. which Winer thinks 
it worth while to notice is : vköi koivÖv, ixri>.vh Ti 'AttikÖv.] 

3 ["Eir^^ (found chiefly in B and D) is received by Tisch., Treg,, Westc. and 
Hort, in Mk. i. 6, L. x. 7, xxii. 30 : and by Westc. and Hort in L. vii. 33 
(Treg.), 34, Mk. xii. 40 (Treg.). See Tisch. Prol p. 49 (ed. 7).] 

* [Veitch quotes this aorist from Maneth. 5. 137, Schol. iEsch. F)'om. 59.] 
^ [Here we must read the aor. subj, : in Jo. vi. 51. quoted by Winer twice,^ 
^r^ffit is probably the true reading. The fut. of ^du {cvldu) occurs 22 times, 6 
times in quotations from the LXX {^miTcn). In 11 of the remaining 16 places 
we must read ?»5Vw (5 times in John, 6 times in the Epistles) ; Zr,(ro/ occurs in 
Mt. ix. 18, X. 28, Jo. xi. 25, Rom. viii. 13, x. 5. On 'iWa (and on iW, the 
reading of B in Rom. vii. 9) see Veitch p. 260.] 


Eom. vii. 9, al., and often in the LXX. The futures are in the 
main later forms, which occur but seldom in the earlier writers 
(Buttm. II. 192); the aorist is confined to later Greek. Earlier 
writers used in the fut. and aor. the corresponding tenses of 


rjfcw. From the 1 aor. r^^a, a later form (Irr. F. p. 153, Lob. 
p. 744), we find the conjunct, tj^coo-l in Rev. iii. 9, where how- 
ever better MSS. have the fut. ri^ovai. From the perf. rjKa (Dt. 
xxxii. 17, Phot. BiUioth. 222, Malal. p. 136 sq., Leo Gramm, 
p. 98, al, Lob. p. 744) we find rjKaai Mk. viii. 3, but on doubtful 
authority : Lachm.^ however receives it.^ 

6dXXco. The 2 aor. aveOaXere^ Ph. iv. 10, — a form never 
found in Greek prose, and seldom in poetry {Trr. V. 
p. 154).* 

laTT/fMc. The present lardvco, which occurs Eom. iii. 31, and 
in compounds, e.g. o-vvcardvco, 2 C. iii. 1 (iv. 2), v. 12, vi. 4, x. 
12, 18, G. ii. 18, is found in Attic writers (Matth. 210), but 
more frequently in later Greek (as icfyLardvecv Cinnam. 214, 
256).^ On the later form lardco see § 14 1./.^ 

Kara/caio). Fut. KaraKarjcrofxat, 1 C. iii. 15, 2 P. iii. 10 (from 
aor. KareKdrjv^ Hqt. 1. 51, 4. 79): the Attic future is KaraKav- 
OrjaofiaL, Eev. xviii. 8. See Thom. M. p. 511, Buttm. IL 211 
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]. 

KaraXeLTTü). 1 aor. Karekei-^a A. vi. 2 (Lob. p. 714).* 

' [Meyer, Treg., and Tisch, read T^xettn. In L. xiii. 35 Rec. has 'Jilri, but the 
best MSS, either omit the word or read Ytlu. The subj. ^'^«w occurs Eev. ii. 25.] 

2 ['Ht-t««^«/ : in 2 C, xii. 13 recent editors receive hffo-cuhTi (for rirr^&»iTi), as 
if from the Ionic Iffffoo/Aon, the augment being added as in hlwuaönv : see Cobet, 
^V. T. Vat. p. xc] 

3 [A. Buttmann (p. 59) quotes this aor. from Ps. xxvii. 7, "Wis. iv. 4, Ecclus. 
xlvi. 12. Hermann reads ^dxonv in i^scli. Suppl. 673, but see Paley in loc. 
Compare Lob. Paral. p. 557, and Lidd. and Scott s. v.] 

* [HvYiffKu : the syncopated forms are not found in tlie N. T. In A. xiv. 19, 
TidvyiKivKi now stands in tlie place of ndvu-vcci Rec. — From lXti.(rxofAa.i, the late 
aorist Ixeier^tiv occurs L. xviii. 13 : this aorist is used in modern Greek, see 
Muliacli, Vul(j. p. 288. Veitch quotes the compound i^tkaafiv from Plat. Legg. 
p. 862.] 

^ [(Jn itrruvu (a doubtful form in classic writers, Veitch s. v.) and IffTo-u see 
above, p. 94. Of ot^ku we lind the ])resent (indie, imper., and subj.), and 
probabl}', if the reading ovk ftrrvxi is correct in Jo. viii. 44, tlie imperfect. See 
Muliacli, Vul(/. p. 299. In Mk. ix. 12 Westc. and Hort read aToxxTurTuvit.] 

" [Kec^i^ofAai : the 1 aor. jtartic. is well su])ported in L. x. 39. On this late 
aorist see Lob. j). 269, Veitch s. v. ; and com]). Mullach ])p. 25, 289.] 

^ [This aor. occurs Rev. viii. 7 : »«raxajiV^^a/, Is. xlvii. 14 AL] 

^ [in this verb the 1 aor. is frecpiently used in modern Creek (Mullach 
p. 258): the 2 aor. is used in the N. T., except in A. vi. 2.] 


K€pdvvvfiL. Pcrf. passive KCKepaafxai Eev. xiv. 10, for the 
more usual Kenpafiai, {Irr. V. p. 183) : analogous to this is the 
partic. avyKCKepaafievov^ H. iv. 2, in very good MSS. 

Kephaivw. Aor. cKepSijaa Mt. xxv. 20, xviii. 15, KepSrjaat, 
A. xxvii. 21, KepS7](Ta<; L. ix. 25, /cephijad) conjunct. 1 C. ix. 19, 
20, Mt. xvi. 26, and frequently; these forms belong to Ionic 
prose {Irr. V. p. 184, Lob. p. 740). In Attic Greek the verb is 
inflected regularly; comp. 1 C. ix. 21.^ 

KXalw. Fut. Kkavcrw (properly Doric), for KXavaofiai, L. vi. 
25, Jo. xvi. 20, Eev. xviii. 9; comp. Babr. 98. 9, Buttm. II. 85, 
Irr. r. p. 189 [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]. The LXX have always 
KXavaofiai [Ptcv. xviii. 9, Eec, Tisch.]. 

Kkiirrcö. Fut. KXeyfrco, for KXi'^^ropLai^ Mt. xix. 18, Eom. 
xiii. 9 (Buttm. II. 85, 221) : it occurs in Lucian, Dial. Deor. 
7. 4, — never in the LXX. 

Kpd^co. Fut. Kpd^ü) L. xix. 40, according to good autho- 
rities, for KeKpd^opLaL (which is always used in the LXX) ; aor. 
eKpa^a for eKpayov, Mt. viii. 29, xx. 30, al. (Buttm. II. 223).^ 
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.] 

{Kpefiafxai. The form i^eKpefxero L. xix. 48, in B,^ is not 
even mentioned by Griesbach and Schulz, and undoubtedly is an 
error of transcription. Lachmann also has left it unnoticed.) 

Kpvirrw. The 2 aor. act. eKpvßov, L. i. 24 (Phot. Biblioth. 
I. 143, Bekk); see Irr. F. p. 198 [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]. 

Kvco {to be pregnant). The fut. and aor. are regularly Kvijaco, 
eKVTjo-a {Irr. F". p. 204) ; so direKVTjo-e, Ja. i. 18. In the present 
Kveco also occurs, and not merely (as Eustathius asserts, p. 1548. 
20) in the sense bring forth : see Lob. Ajax p. 182 sq., Fa^^al. 
p. 556. Hence in Ja. i. 15 we may as correctly write diroKvei 
as -Kvei, but it is not necessary to prefer the former on account 

^ [Here xiphdcyu is generally received (but written as fut. indie, xifhavw, by 
Griesb. and by Westc. and Hort), though Kifhiau precedes and follows. Comp. 
1 C. vii. 28, where yafjt.%(r^i and ynf>i.n are found in the same verse ; Rom. ix. 16, 
18, where the best MSS.' have Ixiuvro; and ixii7 -, L. vii. 33, 34, in the texts of 
Lachm. and Tregelles. See Lobeck's essay De Orthographien Grcecce inconatantia 
{Path. II. 341-355).] 

^ [So Buttmann, Lobeck, Jelf, and others. Veitch reverses the statement : 
"fut. KXi\Pu Arist. Eccl. 667, Xen. Mag. Eq. 4. 17, Luc, and rare xxi^i^oi^a.tXQn. 
Cyr. 7. 4. 13." Kxi^u, not KXi-^of/.cii, is the form used in the LXX.] 

^ [Also Ixixpalac A. xxiv. 21, as in the LXX frequently.] 

* [Also in K ; now received by Tisch., Westcott and Hort. Compare p. 95, 
note ^] 


of the form of the aorist in vor. 18. IST. T. lexicons have Kveco 

\d(TKco. To this belongs the aor. iXaKrjo-a A. i. 18, usually 
referred to the Doric present XaKeo) ; Buttmann however (/n*. 
V. p. 208) maintains that it is immediately derived from the 
2 aor. XaKelv, whi(;h is in general use in Attic Greek. 

'''fjbiaiVQ) : in Tit. i. 1 5 good MSS. have the perf. partic. fie- 
/jLLafjL/j.evoc, instead of the usual /MefiLacr/juevoL ; comp. Lob. p. 35. 
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.] 

viTTTOi Jo. xiii. 6, 14, viivTo^ai Mt. xv. 2. Instead of this 
present earlier writers use z/tfw; see Buttm. II. 249, Lob. p. 241. 

olKTeipd). Fut. oLKT6Lp7]ao) Eom. ix. 15 (as if from olKrecpico), 
instead of oLKrepco: comp. Ps. ci. 15, Jer. xxi. 7, Mic. vii. 19, 
al. This fut. also occurs in the Byzantine writers, see Lob. 
p. 741. 

ofzvvG) for ofjLvvfjLL (Buttm. IL 255) Mt. xxiii. 20, 21, 22, 
xxvi. 74, H. vi. 16, Ja. v. 1 2 : in Mk. xiv. 71, however, the better 
MSS. have ofivvvat for ofivveiv, and this was received into the 
text by Griesbach.-^ 

'''opdco. Imperf. middle copoypur^v A. ii. 25 (from Ps. xv. 8), 
for which icopcopbyv was used in Attic Greek (Buttm. I. 325). 
From oTTTeaOao we find in L. xiii. 28 (though not without 
variant) the 1 aor. conj. o-^aOe, which occurs in Libanius and 
the Byzantines : see Lob. p. 734.^ 

Tral^co. Aor. iveirai^a Mt. xx. 19, xxvii. 31 (Pr. xxiii. 35), 
for which in Attic Greek eiracaa was used (Irr. V. p. 251). But 
we find eirat^a, Tral^ac, in Lucian, Dial. Deor. 6. 4, and Encom. 
Deniosth. 15 ; comp. V. Yvitz^ohQ, Äristoyh. I. 378, Lob. p. 240. 
The fut. Tral^ü)^ occurs Anacr. 24. 8.* 

^ [Compare "^u^vv-us, -uv, -ovrog (Jo. ii. 18, Mt. xvi. 21, Rev. xxii, 8). See 
A. liuttiii. p. 45, and JMuUach p. 294, and Veitch on the particular verbs. The 
proper inflexions of verbs in v/u.i are by no means rare in tlie N. T.] 

^ [In A. ii. 25 ^poopu>fifjy is strongly supported (§ 12. 10). In the perf. ioßxxa 
is often a variant : see especially 1 C. ix. 1, Col. ii. 1, 18. "Oy^Tiffh is received 
by most in L. xiii. 28 : comp. i-ri-^^aTo, Tindar, Fr. 58, 8, and ItiO^uvtoh, Plat. 
Lef/. 947 c. See Veitch.] 

^ [See Mk. x. 34 (Is. xxxiii. 4) : ■rui^of/.xt is the usual fut. in the Alex, dialect, 
as in later writers generally. In the N. T. the other tenses are similarly formed, 
as tTxilot., ivcti^hv : s('(; A. IJuttm. p. 64, V(;itch p. 450.] 

■• [iiciiiM : the Alt. u.vKTctiicrof/.rjt.i (scc al)ove, Karecxociu) occurs Rev. xiv. 13, L, x. 6. 
Comp, also tTunv, Jiekk. An. p. 1324 : see Veitch. These forms (or else the 
gloss of ]lesychius, a/u.-ra'^ovrai' Mva-ravovTxi, pointing to a root -ra^-) might lead 
us to regard aKa.ra.'jrärTovi, 2 V. ii. 14 (Lachni., Westc. and Hort) as a by-form 


irerofiai. The partic. Trerayfievov (for Trerofievov), wliich occurs 
Pvev. xiv. 6 [and viii. 13] in B, is from Trerdofiai, wliich is 
used only by Ionic (e.g. Her. 3. Ill) and later writers (e.g. 
Lucian, Bml. Mart. 15. 3, v. /.) ; see Buttm. II. 271, Irr. V. 
p. 2G2. [Veitch, Gr. V. p. 467.] The pres. -KeTa^ai, found 
as early as Pindar, is given by Wetstein and Matthai amongst 
the variants in Eev. xii. 14 [see also Ptev. xiv. 6].^ 

iTivoa. From the fut. irCofiaL the full form irleaau (Buttm. 
I. 347) occurs in L. xvii. 8, and in the same verse we have 
(j)dy€(Tat from ^dyofiai; both are found in Ez. xii. 18, Euth 
ii. 9, 14. On the infin. ttcv Jo. iv. 9, received by Lachm. and 
Tisch, on the authority of good MSS., see Fritz. De crit. conf, 
p. 2 7 sq. TJelv only — not irlv — occurs in later Greek ; and 
this form (which is found in some MSS.) might perhaps be 
received here, if A had not distinctly irleiv in ver. 7 and 1 0, 
thus showing irlv in ver. 9 to be an error of transcription.^ 

TTLTTTco. AoY. cTTeaa I see § 13. 1. 

peco. Fut. p6v(T(j) Jo. vii. 38, for pevaofiac ; in Attic Greek 
pv/]crofjbaL is the usual form (Lob. p. 739, Irr. V. p. 281). The 
1 aor. also (Cant. iv. 1 6 pevadrcoaav) is confined to later Greek ; 
comp. Lob. p. 739.^ The 2 aor. ippvrjv, which was in regular 
use, occurs in the compound irapapvcaixev H. ii. 1. 

(Ta\iTL^(o. Fut. (TaXTTLcro) for aaXTrly^co, 1 C. xv. 52, comp, 
also Median. Veit p. 201 (Xum. x. 3 ; the 1 aor. iadXiriaa also 
— for iadX-Tny^a Xen. An. 1. 2. 17 — is common in the LXX). 
See Phryn. p. 191, Th. M. p. 789.* 

crrjfiaivü). 1 aor. icn]fjLava A. xi. 28, xxv. 27 (Jud. vii. 21, 
Esth. ii. 22, Plutarch, Aristid. 19, Menand. Byz. Hist. p. 308, 

of iy.a.Ta.Toi.v(TTov;. But the "woi'd (wliicli is not found elsewhere) may also be 
derived from the root of -TrdtrctaSnt, 'Trariofji.oi.t, and rentlered insatiable : compare 
Athen, i. 43, p. 24, The most obvious derivation — from Karwräffffu {crTKpdivoi; 
KmruTccirTos, Arist. Eq. 502) — is excluded by the unsuitableness of the meaning, 
■unsprinkled. The references to Athenseus and Hesychius I owe to the kindness 
of Dr. Hort. See A. Buttm. p. 65.] 

^ [n</^&; : perf. partic. titikt/u-svos L. vi. 38 ; elsewhere •nd^M (with 1 aor. 
Wtccira., not -fa). See A. Buttm. p. 66, Mullach p. 296.] 

^ [Tisch, now writes -nTv, and receives this form in the passages quotfed 
above, and in 1 C. ix. 4, x. 7, Rev. xvi. 6 : so (more or less frequently) Alford, 
Treg., Westc. and Hort. See also A. xxiii. 12, 21 (B), Rom. xiv. 21 (D), 
1 P. V. 8 (X). A. Buttm. (p. 66) regards this infin. as contracted from a form 
Tivai (as (pdv from (plJvai), not from tuTv. See Tisch, on Jo. iv. 7.] 

3 [See however Veitch s. v., where this aorist is quoted from Arist. Bq. 526, ah] 

* [idX-rtu is the form in Num. x. 3 : Udx-ntra occurs Mt. vi. 2, Rev. ix. 1, 
al. Comp. aaX<7rKrrris Rev. xviii. 22 (Polyb. 1. 45. 13 iu some MSS.). J 


309, 358, Act. Thorn, p. 32), which occurs indeed in Xen. 
Hell. 2. 1. 28, but for which ia-rjfjurjva was more commonly 
used by earlier Attic writers: see Buttm. I. 438, Lob. p. 24, 
and below s. v. (^alvco. [See § 13. 1. d.'\ 

o-KerrTo^aL. The present (H. ii. 6, Ja. i. 27, comp. Ps. viii. 
5, 1 S. xi. 8, XV. 4, al.) and the imperfect are seldom found in 
Attic writers (Buttm. II. 291, Irr. V. p. 288). 

"^aiTovSd^a). Fut. airovSacrco for the usual cnrovBdaofiaL, 
2 P. i. 15 (Buttm. IL 85). 

cTTrjpi^o). The aor. imper. is in good MSS. o-rrjpto-ov, L. 
xxii. 32, Eev. iii. 2 ; and in 2 Th. iii. 3, B has the fut. arrjpL- 
cret: the Greeks preferred arrjpL^ov, arTjpL^eo (Buttm. I. 372).-^ 
Comp, in the LXX arrjpLo-ov Jud. xix. 5, Ez. xx. 46, and 
often; iaTrjpLCfa 1 Mace. xiv. 14, al. [also arriplaeL Jerem. 
xvii. 5]. 

Tv^yavid. The perf. TeTev)(e (properly Ionic, then Attic, 
Buttm. IL 301) ^ is found in the received text of H. viii. 6 : 
other MSS. however have the usual Attic perfect reru^T^/ce, and 
A, D, etc., rervx^.^ On the last see Lob. p. 395. 

(fiayetv. Put. cj^dyofxaL Ja. v. 3, Eev. xvii. 16 [L. xiv. 15, 
Jo. ii. 17], Gen. xxvii. 25, Ex. xii. 8 (and often), whence the 
2 pers. (jidyecrac L. xvii. 8. For this Greek authors use eBofjuai, 
the fut. of eSo) (Irr. V, p. 136). 

(j)acvü). 1 aor. infin. eiTK^ävaü (for eiTK^rivai) L. i. 79,^ con- 
trary to the usage of the better writers. In later Greek however 
similar forms occur ; see Lob. p. 26, Thilo, Acta Thorn, p. 49 sq. 
(^lian, Anim. 2. 11 and ^i/. p. 396, ed. Jac.) 

(pavo-Kd). From this we have the fut. einc^avaeL E. v. 14; 
comp. Gen. xliv. 3, Jud. xvi. 2, 1 S. xiv. 36, Judith xiv. 2. This 
form does not occur in Greek writers, but is supported by the 
analogy of the subst. V7r6(f)av(n<; ; see Irr. V. p. 318. 

*(/)€/Dtü. Aor. partic. eveyKa^ A. v. 2, xiv. 13, eveyKavTe<^ L. 

* [In the N. T. also the forms from tlie k cliaracteristic are more common.] 

2 [liuttmann's words are : " t/tsü-^;« was the true Ionic perfect, which in a 
later period became frequent in the non-Attic writers. " {Irr. F. p. 238.) Com- 
pare Veitch p. 578.] 

» [Ttruxi (which is also the reading of i<) is now generally received. This 
form was not known to the ancient grammarians, but is often found in MSS. 
of later authors : see Tisch, on H. viii. G (where no uncial MS. has riTv;^nxi)y 
Veitch p. 578, and especially Lobcck /. c] 

* [In liev. viii. 12, xviii. 23, Tisch, and Westcott and Hort read favjj, instead 
oi (fiaiv^, (pciv^, ot lice. ; and in A. xxi. 3, äv«(p«vavTif.] 


XV. 23 V.l. for iveyKcov (Irr. V. p. 319) ; but see Xen. Mein. 1. 
2. 53, Demosth. Timoth. 703 c, Isocr. Paneg. 40. The indie. 
rjveyKa is frequently used by Attic writers, as also the impera- 
tive forms with a (Jo. xxi. lOy 

*(/)^aVö>. According to several Atticists, the 2 aor. ecpOrjv 
is to be preferred to the 1 aor. €(f)6a(ja, which, however, 
often occurs even in Attic writers (Irr. V. p. 324), and is 
invariably used in the K T., as Mt. xii. 28, Eom. ix. 31, 2 C. 
X. 14, Ph. iii. 16, 1 Th. ii. 16. In the last passage several 
MSS. have the perf. etpdaKe. 

(pvco. 2 aor. passive i(j)vrjv, ^ue/9, L. viii. 6, 7, 8, — very 
common from the time of Hippocrates : for this Attic writers 
use the 2 aor. active 6(j)vv, (^u? (Buttm. IL 321). In Mt. 
xxiv. 32, Mk. xiii. 28, very good MSS. have eKCpvfj (conj. aor. 
passive) for iK(f)vrj, and this may be the preferable readino- ; 
see Fritz. 3fark, p. 578 sq.^ 

'^aipo). Fut. ^apijaofiac for ^aipijo-o), L. i. 1 4, Jo. xvi. 20,22, 
Ph. L 18 (Hab. i. 16, Zach. x. 7, Ps. xcv. 12, and often); see 
Moer. p. 120, Th. M. p. 910, Lob. 740/ Buttm. IL 322: it 
also occurs in Diod. Uxc. Vat. p. 95. 

''^'yapL^oiiai. Fut. ^aplaofiac, Eom. viii. 32, is the non- Attic 
form for 'XjapLovfiaL. 

OD06CO. Aor. dmoaaro,^ A. vii. 27, 39 (Mic. iv. 6, Lam. ii. 7, 
and often, — Dion. H. II. 759), for ^vhich the better writers used 
icoo-aro with the syllabic augment (Th. M. p. 403, Pol. 2. 69. 9, 
15. 31. 12). 1 aor. pass. aTrcoaOrjv Vs. Ixxxvii. 6, comp. Xen. 
Rell. 4. 3. 12, Dio C. 37. 47. Also aor. act. i^Maev ^ A. vii. 45, 
for which some MSS. have i^ecoaev (Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 181). 
Strictly speaking, the rule for the use of the syllabic auo-ment 

1 [''The partic. InyKuv is in the N. T. entirely displaced by hiyxa;, whilst 
conversely, tviyxiTv has taken the place of Iv/yx«/, which occurs once only." 
A. Buttm. p. 68. Tisch, reads ivsyxvi (not only in 1 P. ii, 5, but also) in 
L. xxii. 42. On these aorists see especially Veitch, G?'. V. pp. 592-4.] 

2 [The accentuated MSS. are divided between iK(pv^ (Lachm., Treg., Alf., 
Fritz., A. Buttm.) and i7i(pvri (Tisch., Meyer, Westc. and Hort) : the latter may 
be either 2 aor. act. intransitive, or (Meyer) present and transitive.] 

^ [Lob. p. 740 refers to e;^«//»!«-« solely. In Eev. xi. 10, Rec. has the fut. 
y(^a.pov(nv ; this seems the only example of this form found in any writer.] 

* From the fut. uiru (from ufiJ). The aorist form from the other future 
uiSriru occurs only in later authors ; e.g. partic. usu6ri(rits Cinnam. p. 193. 
[See Veitch, Gr. V. p. 614.] 

* [Accentuated i'?«<rt» by Tischendorf and Meyer.] 


in this verb applies to Attic writers only : see Poppo, Thiic. 
III. ii. 407. 

"''(hveo/jiaL 1 aor. oovrjadjxrjv A. vii. 1 6, as frequently in writers 
of the KOLVTj, e.g. Plutarch, Pausanias (Lob. p. 139). Attic 
writers prefer iirpLdfjLrjv. 

Eem. The later verbal forms are not always found in the N. T. 
where they might be expected. We have, for instance, vrio/xat (not 
TTtov/xai) as the 2 fut. of Trtvcu, Eev. xiv. 10, see Buttm. I. 395 ; aor. 
Koivwcrati Mk. vii. 15, 18, Moeris p. 434 (ed. Piers.), Locella, Xen. 
Eplies. p. 254 ; fut. ^ev^o/xat, Oav/Jida-o/xai, not ^ev^w, Oav/xdcro) (Buttm. 
II. 85). In H. iv. 15, we find amongst the various readings TrcTrapa/xeVov 
from the older TrcLpdo) (instead of Tre-Tretpacr/xeVov from Tretpa^w), and 
Tisch, has received this into the text.^ 

That the same forms are sometimes produced from different verbs 
by inflexion is well known : we shall only specify e^eVevcre Jo. v. 13, 
which (grammatically) may belong equally well to e/cvew {Irr. V. 
p. 230) and to lKV€.v(ji. 

Section XVI. 


The N.T. contains a number of words not used by Greek authors, 
which were either derived from the popular spoken language, or 
were newly coined : we find most examples of the latter class in 
the writings of Paul. The more numerous such words are, the 
more necessary is it to compare the established laws of derivation 
i n Greek with these formations peculiar to the N. T. In connexion 
with this it will be useful to notice the analogies which, though 
not unknown to ordinary Greek, yet appear more prominently 
in the N. T. language. The following observations are based 

1 [For which later writers used xoivuffa,(T6a.t (Moeris Z.c. ).] 

2 [Most editors (including Tisch, in ed. 8) read -^i-pnipafffiivov, since (1) this 
has more external sui)port, and (2) the ordinary meaning of -n-rupaft., 
"experienced," is unsuitable here. Winer (apparently) and Tisch, (in ed. 7) 
considered the two equivalent in meaning ; and Tisch, argued that there could 
be no motive for altering viTrnpatrfji,. (comp. H. ii. 18), but the ambiguous 
'TTi-rupa.fjt.. would naturally bo changed into the more familiar word. See 
Delitzsch. ] 

3 See rti. Cattieri Oazophylacium Grmcor. (1651, 1708), cd. F. L. Abresch 
(Utr. 1757, Leyd. 1809) ; l)ut especially Buttmann, Ausf. Hr. II. 382 sqq. (with 
Lobeck's additions), Lobeck, Parerga to PhrynkhuH, and Lobeck's other works 
quoted above p. 3. Amongst commentaries, Selecla e scholis Valckenarii 
chiefly refers to tliis subject. Examples of the later fornuitions are to be found 
iu the Byzantine writers especially. 


on Buttniann, whose lucid treatment of tlie subject {Amfdlirl. 
Spraclil. § 118 sqq.) embraces all points of importance. Comp. 
Krüger § 41 sq.^ 


1. VERBS. 

The derivative verbs in oco and i^co (mostly but not entirely 
from nouns) are peculiarly frequent. In some instances verbs 
in 00) superseded others in evco or l^co ; as Be/caroo) (Se/carevcj 
Xen. An. 5. 3. 9, al.), i^ovSevoco ^ {e^ovSevi^co in Plutarch), 
crapoQ) (for aalpco, Lob. p. 89), Kecj^aXacoco ^ (KecpaXi^co, Lob. 
p. 95), Svvafjböco and ivBuvafioco (Lob. p. 605 note), acpvirvoo) 
(d^uTTi^tfoj, Lob. p. 224), avaKaivow (avaKauvL^co, Isocr. Areop. 
c. 3) ; also fieo-roco, SoXcoo). From SeKaroco comes äiroSeKaroco ; 
with a(j>u7Tv6ü) comp. Kadvirvoco Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 30. We find 
also Kpajaioco for Kparvvco, aOevoco for adeveco, avaa-jajovv for 
avdararov iroielv ; but x^pcroü) is formed from %a/)t9, Suva/jLOco 
from SwayLtt? (Lob. p. 605). 

Verbs in c^co come from a great variety of roots ; as opOpl^o) 
from opOpo^, al')QiaX(iiTL^(D from al^dXwro^, Becj/juarl^co from 
Bely/iia, TreXeKi^co from TreXeKVf;, fjbVKrrjpL^ü) from fiVKryp, crfivpvL- 
^(o, dvefjLi^co, (j)vXaKi^o), ifiaTL^o), dvadefiari^o) (found also m 
the Byz. writers), dearpL^co (Cinnam. p. 213), aTrXajx^^^ofLai, 
alperl^ü), avp^popcpl^o) (Ph. iii. 10, in good MSS.). HfcopTrl^co 
(StaaKopTTL^Q)) has no evident root in the Greek written lan- 
guage ; it was however a provincial, perhaps a Macedonian 
word (Lob. p. 218). — On verbs in c^co from names of nations 
and persons, see Buttm. IL 385 (Jelf 330. Ohs. 3) : we have 

1 [See also Jelf 329-347, Donalds. Gr. pp. 310-340, Keto Crat. pp. 449 sqq., 
524 sqq., 664 sqq., Webster, Syntax of the N. T. c. ii.] 

2 On this word see Lob. p. 182. [There are four forms of this word, \lov-6ivsu, 
'hvicü, -hvou, -hv'ou : the last is quoted by Lobeck from Eustratius (also lloy- 
eivufx.a. from Const. Porph.), and is received by Tisch, (ed. 8) in Mk. ix. 12 ; in 
this passage indeed each of the four forms is found in one or more of our best 
MSS. 'E|.ty^£y/« occurs frequently in the LXX and in the N. T. ; -^ev/o, Mk. ix. 
12 (Lachm., Treg., Westc. and Hort), 2 C. x. 10 (Lach.), Ez. xxi. 10 ; -^lyom 
Mk. ix. 12 Rec, Jud. ix. 38, al.] 

3 [KiipaXaioco occurs once in the N. T. in the ordinary texts of Mk. xii. 4, but its 
proper meaning is altogether unsuitable in this passage. Tisch, (ed. 8) and 
Westcott and Hort adopt the very probable reading (of i<BL) Ixsipax/wo-ay : 
Kt(pa\iOü> stands to Kinpa-Xiov in the same relation as xnfaXcc/ou to Ki!pei,7^a.iov.'\ 



only to mention lovSat^o), with wliicli compare the later word 
Savi^L^co, Leo Gramm, p. 447. 

There are also verbs in a^co that seldom or never occur else- 
where, as vTjTTid^o), aivca^Q) (arjOco) ; also in evco, as fieo-irevco, 
fiajevo), eyKparevofiat, al'^/jLaXrcreva) (Lob. p. 442), TrajcSeixo, 
ryv/jLV7]T6vco} Tlic last is from jvfjLV'i]Tr]<;, which (according to 
Buttm. IL 431) can only be vindicated as a collateral form of 
fyv^vY}^. From 'yvfivo'^ we should expect yvfivLTTj^;, and thus we 
find <yv/jLviT€v(o in 1 C. iv. 11, in the best MSS. :^ we must not 
therefore, with Fritzsche {Conform. Crit. p. 21) and Meyer, 
regard this as a mistake in transcription.^ 

Amongst verbs in vvtti which signify a making to he what the 
(concrete) root denotes (as iKapvveiv = IXapov iroieiv, Buttm. 
IL 387, Jelf 330. 2), ctkXtjpvvco deserves mention ; it is a colla- 
teral form of aK\7]p6cL>, which does not occur in the IST. T.* 

Verbs in aivco — XevKaivco, ^Tjpaivo), evcppaivco (Buttm. IL 
65 sq., Lob. Frol. Path. p. 37) — require no special remark.^ 

The formation of verbs in 6(o from primitives in eo), though 
not unknown to Attic writers (Buttm. IL 61, Lob. p. lol), may 
have been more frequently practised in later Greek; at all events 
v7J6co, Kvrj6co,aX7]6a) [p. 22], are not used by the older writers. 
See however Lob. p. 254. 

Verbs in ctkü),^ with the exception of evpio-Kco and ScSdo-Kco, 
are rare in the N. T., as elsewhere (Buttm. II. 59 sq., Jelf 
330. 1). We find yr)pdcrK0) as an inchoative (Buttm. IL 393) : 
fieOvaKü), causative of fjieOvco, occurs in the passive only : 7a- 

' [To these should be added '(yiXivco, which is well supported in Eev. iii. 19, 
and pvz-e/.pivofjcai Rev. xxii. 11 (Tisch, ed. 7) : the latter verb is not found else- 
where, and the former is very rare, see Lidd, and Scott s. v.] 

^ [The best texts now have yvf^vtrivu : see Alf. in loc] 

^ Comp. Lob. Ajax, p. 387. For oXo6fivu, H. xi. 28, some good MSS. have 
oXi6pivu (from okiöpos) ; Lachm. and with him Tisch, have received this form 
into the text. I am not aware that the latter form of this Alexandrian word 
has been preserved elsewhere. [Recent editors receive l^oXi^pivu in A. iii. 23, 
with most of the uncial MSS. We find the same form in the Alex. MS, of the 
LXX (both in the sim[)le verb and in the compound), as Ex. xii. 23, Jos. xxiii. 
4, .5, al. In II. xi. Tisch, now reads öko^piveuv.] 

* ["ixkripoM is very rare : ffKXtjpvvu is not uncommon in the LXX and in 
medical writers (llip[)0cr., al.).] 

* [To these verbs derived from adj. or subst. should be added iv-rposwrlu G. 
vi. 12 ("not used by any earlier writer: " EUic), oocaipiu Ph. iv. 10 (Died. S. 
Exc. Vat. p. 30).] 

^ [Un verbs in cku, see Don. New Cr. p. 615 ; Curtius, Elucidations, p. 141 
ü(\}[., Greek Verb, chapters x. and xxii.] 


fiLcTKCü, equivalent in meaning to yafML^co, is sufficiently attested 
in L. XX. 34 only.^ 

rprjyopicü (from the perfect iypyyopa) and its cognate iyprj- 
yoptco are altogether singular in formation (Lob. p. 119,Buttm. 
II. 1Ö8) ; but with tliis formation from a reduplicated perfect '"' 
we may compare eTrnce-^eipeoi Papyri Tauriu. 7. line 7. 

To derivative verbs in evw belongs also TrapaßoXeveorOaL Ph. ii. 
30, wliich Griesb., Lachm., al., have received into the text, in 
accordance with the weightiest critical authorities. From irapd- 
/?oAos a verb TrapaßoXuaOat might certainly have been formed 
directly ; but the ending evoo is chosen to express the meaning ira- 
pdßoXov ilvai, as in later Greek cTrto-KOTreuctv is used for Ittlo-kottov 
cTraL (Lob. p. 591), and, to give a still closer parallel, as we find 
7rep7r€p€v€(T6aL from TrtpTrepo?. It would not be right to make the 
admission of TrapaßoXevea-ßai depend on the assumption that there 
existed a verb ßoXevea-Oat, which certainly is not to be found in 
any Greek writer.-^ 


a. From Verhs.^ Of nouns in /lo? (Buttm. II. 398) from 
verbs in a^oj, we have to mention dytacrfi6<;, which does not 
occur in Greek authors, as also ireipaa pLo^ from ireLpd^co, evra- 
<^(,aapLo^ from ivracpLa^o).^ From verbs in c^co we find puaKa- 
pccrpLo^;, 6vec8LcrpL6<; (Lob. p. 512), ßacraviapLoq, TrapopyccrpLo^, 
pavTco-pLO^; (pavTL^6iv),craßßaTtcrpL0(; (aaß ßaTi^etv) ,(T(o(f)poviG- pl6<; , 

The most numerous formations, however, are those in /xa 
(Lob. Paral. p. 391 sqq.) and 0-49, the former in great part 
peculiar to the N. T., but always framed in accordance with 
analogy ; as ßdima-pba, pdinapba (from ßairri^eiv, etc.), sjrevo-fia 
(from yfrevSeadac), lepdrev/jia, KardXufxa (KaraXveiv), also i^e- 
pafxa (Lob. p. 64), daOevrjpba, dvrXrj/uLa, dvrdXXaypa, dwo- 

^ [This is the judgment of the best editors : yx/x'i^u, however, occurs not un- 
frequently. See Tisch, on Mt. xxii, 30.] 

^ Döderlein, Ueber die Redupl, in der griech. und lat. Woribildunj, in his 
Reden und Aufsätzen II. No. 2. 

3 [Mullach (p. 258) mentions that in modern Greek verbs in lu have some- 
times collateral forms in ivu, as u<^%'kiuu by the side of u^ix'iu ; and compares 

Tvpacvviveo, Tvpccvvia.] 

* Compare G. Curtius, De nomin. Gr. formatione linguar. cognat. ratione 
habita: Berlin 1842 {Zeitschr. far Alterth. 1846, No. 68 sq.). 

* Comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 397 sqq., and especially Technol. lib. 3, p. 253 sqq. 
^ [On the rare noun äpTayf^og see Ellicott and Lightfoot on Ph. ii, 6, Donalds. 

New Crat. p. 451.] 



(TKLacr/ia, irpo'^KOfjifia, airavyacr/iia, fjTjTj/ia, aorrj/na, Karop- 
6co/jLa, are pico fia (from contracted verbs, like (ppovy/xa, etc.).^ 
These nouns mostly denote a product or state : only ävrXrj/jba 
denotes an instrument (a meaning which nouns in /^o? often 
have) ; and KaraXvfjia, the place of KaTokveiv (Eustath. Odyss. 
p. 146. 33). 

The nouns in gi<;, which are particularly numerous in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, are nearly all to be found in Greek 
authors ; only 6eX7)crt<;, KardiravaLf;, 7rp6^'^vaL<;,^ aTrdKvTpwGL^, 
BLKaia)(TL<;, TreTroldrjcrL^ (Lob. p. 295), /S/cocrt? (eViTro ^770-^9), re- 
quire mention. On irapaaKevrj, formed from the root of a verb 
in afö), see Buttm. IL 404 ; on oIkoSo/jLij, Lob. p. 490 : and on 
the very common word StaOtjKy (from 1 aor. of TiOevaC), Buttm. 
IL 401, Lob. Paral p. 374. 

To the abstract nouns belong also some in fiovrj ; of these 
we find in the !N". T. irXr^aiiovrj (Buttm. II. 405). ^ETriXTja/jLOvr], 
however, is immediately derived from iiriXTjo-fjicov ; ireLajjiovt^ 
(found also in Pachym. II. 100, 120) is formed from irelcrixa, 
though it may be directly referred to TrelOw, as TrXrjafjiovT] to 
ttXtjOco.^ Among abstract nouns from verbs in evco should be 
mentioned ipiOela} 

The concrete nouns have little that is peculiar. Erom verbs 
in afö), tfo), v^w, we find in the IN". T. the paroxytone ktlcfttj^;^ 
and the oxytone ^ ßtaary^;, ßaiTTLa-Tr}^, [JuepLarY]^, evayyeXiarTj^;, 
yoyyvaTi]<i, and eXK7}vicrTr]<^^ — all seldom or never found else- 

1 [In A. XXV. 7 aWiui^a. (for a.]Tla.y,a) is veiy strongly supported : this word 
•* is not found elsewhere, but Eustathius (p. 1422. 21) uses ccWiokth for a.i7lx<ns " 
(Meyer inloc). — On the tendency of some nouns in f/.oc, to assume an active or 
abstract meaning, see EUic. on Ph. iv. 6, Col. ii. 5. ] 

2 The form ;^;vö-/a seems to be used only when the first part of the compound 
is an appellative : the N. T. word cciju.aTiK;^viricx. (Leo Gr. p. 2S7) may be com- 
pared with u.\y.a.rox,v(rltt. (Theoplian. p. 510), (puTop^^va-'ia., and pivt.yx,v(r'nx.. 

3 [On -xiKrfjLorn See Ellic. on G. v. 8 ; and on the termination, New Crat, p. 

* The connexion of Ipidua. with tpii is not precluded by the mere presence of 
the 6, for this letter is found in this family of words in Ipihiv, Ipto'tZ^uv ; but 
the whole form of the word shows that it can only be referred to Ipihvu. That 
moreover the N. T. word ipihU is no other than tlie ipthia {labour for hh'e) 
which was already in use among the Greeks, is convincingly shown by Fritzsche 
{Bom. I. 143 sqq.). Amongst earli(;r writers, see Stolberg, De Sola'c. N. T. p. 
136 sqq. [See also EUicott and Lightfoot on G. v. 20 ; Alford on Rom. ii. 8.] 

^ On the accentuation see liuttm. II. 408 (Jelf 59, Don. p. 315). 

' ''E.X\nviZ,uv has the general meaning to deport onenelf as a Greek (Diog. L. I. 
102), It is most fre([uently ajtplied to speakiiir/ Greek, and especially to the 
use of the Greek language by foreigners (Strabo 14. G62) ; and in this case it is 


where : only iu the case of KoX\vßiaT7]<; (which however is not 
peculiar to the N. T.) there exists no intermediate verb koWv- 
ßl^etv} From reXetovv we have reXetwr»;?, comp. ^t/Xwtt;? and 
XvTpcoT}]<;: from 7rpo<;Kvv€iv, 7rpo<;KvvT]T7]^ (Constant. Man. 4670) : 
on €7rev8vT7](; see Buttm. H. 411 (Jelf 331). The older writers 
preferred ScwKryjp to StcoKTrjf; ; similarly Borrjp has the collateral 
form Sot?; 9.'^ 

Kardvv^t^, Eom. xi. 8 (from the LXX), if derived from 
Karavvard^a) (as it was at one time supposed to be), would be 
a very strange formation. It is however clear from Dan. x. 9 
(Theodot.) that this noun was regarded as cognate with Kara- 
vvaaetv ; and thus it might denote stupefaction (p(V7\J^ Ps. Ix. 5), 
and thence torpor:^ see Fritz. Rom. II. 558 sqq. 

Tafielov (for ra/jbcelov, from ra/juevco) is the reading of all good 
MSS. in L. xii. 24, and of many MSS. in Mt. vi. 6 ^ (see Lob. p. 
493, Paral. p. 2 8) : similarly we find the compound yXcoaao/cofiov 
for <yXü)aaoKo/jLetov or jXcoacroKo/jLLov (from Ko/jbico), without any 
variant (see Lob. p. 9 8 sq.). In each case the abbreviated form 
was the result of a careless pronunciation of the word. 

8. From Adjectives. Under this head come 

(1) Some abstract nouns in tt;?, ot'?;^; as dycorr]^, dyvorrj^;, 
dBeXcpoTr]^; (Leo Gramm, p. 464), dBp6T7]<;, dirXoTTj^, UavoTr}<;, 
dcpeXoTTj^ {dc^eXeia in earlier writers), aKXrjpörr}^, rcfMLorr)^, re- 
XecoTT]^, iJLaraL6T7}<;, yvfivorrj';, fiejaXecorrj^;, KvpioTT]^, ala')(poTrj<i , 
7ri6Trj<; (dya66T7]<;, LXX), see Lob. p. 350 sqq.: dKaödprrjq, Eev. 
xvii. 4, is not well attested. 

often used without implying disparagement, e.g. in Xen. Anah. 7. 3. 25, Strabo 
2. 98: De Wette's assertion {Bibel p. 17, — reprinted from the Hall. Encycl) 
is incorrect. Hence the substantive iXXmtirTris (which never occurs in Greek 
authors) very naturally signifies one who speaks Greek, though not a Greek by 
birth, e.g. a Greek-speaking Jew. That in Christian Greek phraseology ikXyivi^uv 
also meant to be a heathen (as in Malal, p. 449) has no further connexion with 
our subject. [See page 29, note'.] 

^ [This verb occurs Schol. Aristoph. Ban. 507 ; and in Schol. Aristoph. Pax 
1196 we should probably read xncoXkvßi<rfiivoi.] 

- [In Rev. xii. 10 recent editors receive from A the strange form Ketrriyup, 
for Kxrnyopoi. "This form of the word is Hebraic ^iiJ-'Op. A complete parallel 
is presented by the Kabbinical designation of Michael, the "ilJ^iD» '' <rf^'^y'^?, i-^. 
trvi^yopos (comp. Schöttg.). Similarly in later Greek ^tecKuv for liuKovoi ; comp. 
"VVetstein." Diisterd. in loc] 

3 [The Hebrew noun (riDTiri) which the LXX render by Kctrüwln in Is. xxix. 

10 (from which Rom. xi. 8 is freely quoted) is derived from the verb {"CTp}) 

which Theodotion renders by y-cLTatdaau in Dan. x. 9.] 

4 [Ta/*£rav is Certainly the true reading in Mt. xxiv. 26, L. xii. 3, 24, and most 
probably in Mt. vi. 6. j 


(2) Those in avvr], denoting non-material qualities : as ekerj- 
fioavvj] and aa'^TjfiocrvvT] (from iXerj/jicov and äcr')(i^iJiwv, comp. 
aco(f)poavv7] from acocppcovy, or dyLcoavvr), ayaOcoavvr], lepojavvr), 
p.e'yaXwavvT], with w, since derived from adjectives with short 
penultimate;^ — all later forms, found only in Hellenistic writers: 
see in general Lob. Prol. Path. p. 235 sqq. 

Amongst nouns in ta also, derived from adjectives in 09, po? 
(Buttm. II. 415), there are several later formations (Lob. p. 
343), e.g. i\acj)pLa, like ala'^pla (Eustathius) from ala^p6<;. In 
2 P. ii. 16 we find wapacppovia from irapd(^pwv (Lob. Proleg, 
Path. p. 238), like evhaip^ovla from evSat/jicov; but some 
[cursive] MSS. have the more usual 'Trapacppoavvr].^ 

Lastly, the neuter of many adjectives in to? is used as a sub- 
stantive ; as vTTO^vyiov, /aeOopcov, vttoKtjvlov, acj^dyiov (tt/oo?- 
(j)dyLov), etc. : see Fritz. Pralim. p. 42. 

7. Fro77i other substantives (Buttm. II. 420 sqq., Jelf 335, 
Don. p. 319). ElScoXelov^ (eiScoXov), iXacoov {iXaia), /jlvXojv Mt. 
xxiv. 41 V. I. (fjLvXo^, fJivXrj), Buttm. II. 422 sq.; and the femin. 
ßacriXicraa (Buttm. II. 427). 'AcpeBpcov, which is peculiar to the 
N. T., comes from eBpa. The gentile femin. from ^olvl^ is $0/- 
viaaa; hence we find Svpocj)OLVLaaa Mk. vii. 26, as KlXtcro-a 
from KiXi^ (Buttm. II. 427). Perhaps however a femin. was 
also formed from ^oivUr), the name of the country, for very 
many good MSS. have in this pLace SvpocpoLvLKtaaa (comp. Fritz. 
in loc)-} this might be immediately derived from a simpler form 
^oiviKL^, as we find ßaalXuaaa by the side of ßaaiXlf;, and as 
(in Latin at all events) Scythissa was used for ^kv6l^, or as in 
later Greek cpvXdKiaaa is found by the side of cj)vXaKL<; : see in 
general Lob. Prol. Path. p. 413 sq. 

To the later and Latinising formation belong, of gentile nouns 

1 Etym. Mar/, p. 275. 44. Yet we find i/.iya.Xo(rvvn in Glycas (j). 11), even 
in the later edition. That nearly all the nouns in ucrvvri belong to the later 
language, is shown by Buttm. (II. 420). On the termination a-wn in general, 
see Aufrecht in the ßcrl. ZeitM^hr. für ver<jhich. Sjjrachjby'sch. 6. Heft. [Lüne- 
mann adds a reference to 0. Biihler, Z>a.s- griech. Secundär suffix tvs : ein 
Beitrag z. Lehre v. d. Worthildung (Giitt. 1858).] 

^ Of substantives derived from adje(;tives in vi, some, as is well known, end 
in la, instead of uu. (liuttm. II. 416, Jelf 334. Obs. 1). In others the spelling 
varies between /« and ua,, e.g. xaxatra^/« (comp. I'oppo, Thnc. II. i. 154, Ellendt, 
Pra'f. ad Arrian. p. 30 sqq., Weber, Demosth. p. 511), the form ua, however 
being best attested in this word. [See also p. 49.] 

^ [Written with -/- (not -u-) by Tischendorf, Westcott and Ilort.] 

* [So Lachm., Tisch., Weste, and Hort; Tregelles, lüpa. i'oi)fixiff(ru.] 


and patronymics, 'HpcoStavö^, Mt. xxii. 16, and XpLaTiav6<;, A. 
xi. 26, al.: comp. KaiaapLavo^ Ait. Epid. 1. 19. 19, 3. 24. 117. 
In the earlier language the termination avo'=: was used only in 
Ibrming gentile names for cities and countries out of Greece 
(Buttm. II. 429, Jelf 338./;). 

Among diminutives deserves to be mentioned ßtßXaplhtoVj 
formed immediately from ßißXdpiov (which is mentioned by 
Polhix), and used instead of the older forms ßißXLSiov and 
ßißXihdpLov (like IfjLaTLhdptov from ijjbaTL^Lov)'^ see Lob. Pathol. 
I. 281. TwacKupLov follows the ordinary analogy, but seems to 
have been of rare occurrence in Greek authors : the same may 
be said of cordpcov (Mk. xiv. 47, Jo. xviii. 10), KKLvdpiov, irai- 
Saptov. Amongst diminutives in cov, yjrc^lov is decidedly a later 

The substantives in rjpLov are properly neuter adjectives (Buttm. II. 
412 sq.), as iXacrTijpLov, Ov/xiarypLov^ cfivXaKTyptov. This termination 
became more common in the later language : e. g. avaKaXyTrT-^ptov 
Xiceph. Gregor, p. 667, SeyrypLov Cedren. II. 377, OavarijpLov ih. I. 
G79, laparrjpLov ih. I. 190, al. ^XaKXTJptos, formed immediately from 
cj)vXaKTyp, has like it an active meaning, guarding, ]3rotecting. 'IXa- 
a-TTjpLov is properly something that irropitiates, but can be specially 
applied to the place where the propitiation is accomplished (as 
4>vXaKrr]pLov denotes a guardhouse, outpost), and hence to the covering 
of the ark of the covenant. For Rom. iii. 25 the signification 
projyiiiatm'y offering (Index to Theophan. cent.) is ec^ually suitable : 
Philippi has lately denied this, but without sufficient reason. Zcv- 
KTTjpLa is a femin. subst. of the same kind ; comp. a-rvTrrqpia. 'XoiT-qpla, 
is immediately connected with awryp : besides this, a-wrijpLov also 
occurs as a substantive. 'YTrepwov, i.e. vvrepwiov, is in like manner to 
be regarded as the neuter of vTrepwto?, which is formed from the prepos. 
vTrep, as irarpwos from TraTtjp, for there is no intermediate adjective 



a. From Verhs. To adjectives immediately derived from a 
verbal root belongs 7rei66<;, which is fully established in 1 C. ii. 
4 : compare eSo? from eScj, ßoaK6<; from ßoaKco, <j)eiS6<; from 

^ On diminutives in lov see Fritz. Pritlim. p. 43, and Janson, De vodbus in 
iov trisyllabis, in Jahn's Ärdiiv VII. 485 sqq. 

^ [In L. xxi. 11 we should probably read (poßrjpov, for ^'cßr.Tpov : compare 
Kopr,6pov, xvxr)6pov. See Lobeck in Buttm. II. 413. Here may also be mentioned 
the form ffvyyivivs {ffvyyinZcn, Mk. vi. 4 and perhaps L. ii. 44) : see A. Buttm. 
p. 25.] 


{(pel^co) (^eßofiai, and see Lob. p. 434. These derivatives are as 
a rule oxytone; (jydyof; alone is also written as a paroxytone by 
the grammarians (Lob. Paral. p. 135), and this accentuation is 
followed in the IST. T. Among those in «Xo?, äfiapT(o\6<; is most 
common (Buttm. II. 448) ; dhoSXov, which is the neuter of el'SwXo«? 
(Lob. Path. p. 134), belongs to the same class. 

Verbals in to^ -^ sometimes correspond to the Latin participle 
in tus, as yvoaaro^ notus, cnrevrof; saginatus, aTra/Sevro? {inept), 
compare OeoTrvevarot; inspiratus ;^ sometimes to adjectives in 
hilis, as oparo^, Sv';ßd<7TaKT0<;, dveKTo^, a/caraö-^ero?, aKaraTrav- 
crT09, dveKhirj^rjTo^, dv€K\aX7)To<;. Some verbals have an active 
meaning (Fritz. Pom. II. 185), as airraio-ro^ not stumUing, i.e. 
not sinning ; dXdXrjro^ however (Eom. viii. 26) certainly does 
not belong to this class. ^ Airelpaaro^, Ja. i. 13, like the classical 
cLTrelpaTOf;, is either tintried, tmtempted, or — what amounts to the 
same in this passage — incapable of being tried [see p. 242]. 
Only Tra^T^To? has the meaning one who is to suffer, A. xxvi. 
23 ; comp. ^6ua:to9, irpaKTo^, Aristot. De Änima 3. 9, p. 64 
(Sylb.), Cattier, Gazophyl. p. 34. The verbal irpo<;7]\vTo<; is 
immediately connected with such forms as eirrjXv^, fierrjXv^, and 
is an extended formation of which we find no examples in Greek 

ß. From Adjectives. Among adjectives derived from other 
adjectives (or from participles) a few deserve special notice : e.g. 
TrepLovaio^ and iiriovaio^, like eKovaiof;, i6eXovcrio<;, (Lob. p. 4 
sq.), which are formed from ckcov and iOiXcov in the same way as 
the feminines cKovcra, eOekovaa. ^Einovcno^ however has pro- 
bably a direct connexion with the feminine {r}) iinovaa, seil. 
rjfiepa, so that apTo<; eTnovcrio^ is bread for the following day : 
compare Stolberg, Diss, de pane iiriovaiw {De Soloecismis N. T. 
p. 220 sqq.), Valcken. Meet. L 190, and Fritz. Matt. p. 207 sq., 
where also the derivation of the word from ovaia (which would 
be grammatically possible, comp. Ivov(tio<;) is controverted.''^ 

1 See Buttin. I. 443 sqq., Lob. Paral. p. 478 sqc]., Moiszisstzifir, De Adj. Groec. 
Verbal. (Conitz 1844). [Don. p. 191; Curtius, Or. Verb, p. 515. On the 
accentuation of comt)ound verbals, see Lob. Paral. pp. 473-498, A. Buttm. 
Or. p. 42.] 

^ The yaxsive interpretation of this word in 2 Tim. ill. 16 can admit of no 
doubt, and is also supported by tlui analogy of ifiTuvaroi ; though several deri- 
vatives of this kind have an active ineaiiing, as tilTvivtrTos, ec-TDnva-ro;. 

■* [This Monl is most fully examined by Tholiick (Serm. on the Mount, pp. 341- 
348), Lightfüüt [Revi^iou, pp. 194-234), M'Clellan, New Test. pp. (J32-G47. 


The meaning of irepLovato^; in tlie Bible is not simply 2^T027rius, 
as opposed to what belongs to another, any more than irepiov- 
aiaa/jL6<; in the LXX means simply j^'^'opcrty. 

JJiaTLKo^ (Mk. xiv. 3, Jo. xii. 3), from iriaro^, is explained by 
several ancient commentators as meaning genuine. In earlier 
writers the word signifies convincing, probably also 2^^'^siiasive, 
Plat. Gorg. 455 a, Diog. L. 4. 37, Dion. H. V. 631, Sext. Emp. 
3fath. 2. 71, Theophrast. Mctapli. 253 (Sylb.) ; in nearly all the 
passages, however, some MSS. have TreicrrtKo^, and this form has 
usually been preferred by the critics, see Bekker and Stallb. on 
Plat. /. c, and compare Lob. Ajcu^:, v. 151. In later Greek it sig- 
nifies /«iY/?/ii/, triistworthy , of persons; see Lücke, Joh. II. 496, 
Index to Cedrenus p. 950. A transition to the m^dÄimg genuine, 
as a material predicate, would not be impossible, particularly as 
technical expressions (and such vdpho^ iriariKi] may very well 
have been), and mercantile terms especially, are often strange.^ 
Others, after Casaubon, take inaTLKo^ for drinkable (Fritz. 
Mark, p. 5 9 8 sqq.), from iriiriGKoa or the root tt/w, like Trtcrro? 
drinkable (^schyl. Prom. 480), TrtaTijp, Tricrrpa, irlarpov, and 
other words quoted by the old lexicographers. That the ancients 
did sometimes drink the nard oil we know from Athenseus (15. 
689). But I cannot clearly see why both evangelists applied 
this particular epithet : if the thin liquid nard-ointment which 
they used for pouring out {jcaTaykeiv, Mk. I. c.) did not differ 
from that which was drinkable, it would be just as superfluous 

Liinemann refers to articles by Leo Meyer ^in Kuhn's Zeitschr. 1858, VII. 424 sq. , 
428), who maintains that the word is formed by the suffix /o from Wt and ovt, 
and denotes "that which is £?r/," so that ctpros i. signifies " the bread which is 
serviceable or necessary for the support of life, — which answers to our neces- 
sities." Lightfoot's objection to all derivations from uvat (or olffla.) — that the 
word would then be \'Tov(rio;, not i-riovaioi, the / never being retained unless the 
second word was originally written with the diganima (as in WlopKo;, Wumr,?, 
etc.)— appears decisive. His conclusion is that the phrase means bread for the 
coming day. M'Clellan refers the word to ä Wiuv (seil. ;^^flva;, «.luv), "bread 
for the future world.'" In a second Appendix Bp. Lightfoot discusses 

Tiptovffies. ] 

^ They have this especial peculiarity, that words usually applied to persons 
only are transferred to articles of merchandise : compare the German ßau, 
properly weak, feeble [but used for dull, heavy, in respect of sale], and such 
notices as "Sugar inactive, wheat unasked." Lobeck {Paral. p. 31) defends 
Scaliger's view, that vk/tikos is derived from Tr'KXffu (Fritz. Mark, p. 595), since 
euphony leads to the omission of t after <r and in some other cases : comp. 
TTipvi^, Tipvtl, but especially Ttrvpov and the Latin pisso. Meyer still 
adheres to the rendering genuine. [For other explanations see Alford on Mk. 
xiv. 3.] 


to add the epithet TnarcKr] as to speak of fluid nard. The 
vapSo(} \eiTTr} of Dioscorides is properly only fluid nard, as 
opposed to the thick, viscid kind. In John's narrative, too, 
the mention of drinhalle nard does not harmonise well with 
the manipulation indicated by aX€L(f>€iv. Lastly, Fritzsche's 
rendering of Trcar. by " qui facile bibi potest, lubenter bibitur " 
(p. 601) is not sufficiently supported ; not to mention that 
it cannot be certainly shown that iriarLKo^ anywhere has the 
meaning drinkahle. Indeed Trto-ro? itself was probably not 
much used — in ^schylus /. c. there is a play on words \ov 
'^pcaTov 0VT6 itl(7t6v\ — being superseded by the unambiguous 


y. From Substantives. To adjectives derived from substantives 
belong amongst others aapKtvo^ and aapKLKo^. The former 
signifies fleshy, i.e. made of flesh (2 C. iii. 3), as proparoxytone 
adjectives in lvo^ almost without exception denote the material 
of which a thing is made, e.g. XiOlvo^ of stone (2 C. iii. 3), ^vXlvo^ 
tüooden, irrjkLvo^ of clay, afcdv6cvo<^, ßua(Ttvo<;, etc. (Buttm. II. 
448) : the latter is fleshly. There is however preponderant or 
considerable authority for adpKtvo^ in Eom. vii. 14, 1 C. iii. 1 
(2 C. i. 12), H. vii. 16, where aapKCKo^; might have been ex- 
pected ; and even Lachmann has received it into the text.^ But 
how easily might aapKiK6<;, a word found in the N. T. only,^ be 
confounded in the MSS. with the familiar word crdpKLvo<; (Fritz. 
Horn. II. 46 sq.). If Paul wrote adpKtvo^, he must have intended 
some such special emphasis as Meyer attributes to the word in 
1 C. iii. 1.^ But in the doctrinal system of Paul we find no 
support for any description of the natural man which the merely 
material word adpKivo<; would be sufficient to convey ; whilst 
crapKtKo^, in antithesis to irvevpiaTLKo^, is all that is required even 
in these passages. Besides, 1 C iii. 3, taken in connexion with 
ver. 2, shows that Paul used the same designation in both verses."* 

^ [Not in 2 C. i. 12 : in the other passages recent editors read ffdpxivos. On 
adj. in tvos see Donalds. Hew Crat. p. 458, Trench, Syn. s. v. trct.pKivoi.'] 

^ [It occurs in Anth. Pal. 1, 107, Ts.-Arist. Jlist. An. 10. 2. 7, and is a v. I. 
in 2 Chr. xxxii. 8.] 

•'* [Meyer's view is that, to designate more ernphaticully tlie uiis])iritual nature 
of the Corintliians, Paul calls theni men of ilte Jlesh — " men who had experienced 
so little of the Holy Spirit's oi)eration, that the (rä.p^ appeared to constitute 
their whole being : " comp. Trench /. c] 

* [That is, in verses 1,3: irccpKiKot is undoubted in ver. 3. See Alford in loc.'\ 



Sucli an expression as euToXrj aapKLvrjy II. vii. IG, is hardly to 
be tolerated.^ 

Among the oxytone adjectives in tvo<; which express notions of 
time (Buttm. II. 448, Jelf 338), Kad7]/jL€pLv6<;, opOpivL^, Trpco'ivof;, 
are hiter forms, for which earlier writers used Ka6rip,epLo^, k.t.X. ; 
Ta'^Lvof; belongs to the same class. Some adjectives derived 
from substantives end in etyo9, as (tkot6cv6<;, <f)a)TeLp6<{ ; eXeeti^o? 
however — a form not uncommon in Attic Greek (V. Fritzsche, 
Aristoph. I. 456) — comes from the verb eXeeco, as TroOeuvo^ from 
iroOico (Buttm. II. 448). KepapnKo^ {Kepdpeio^, Kepdp.Lo<;) must 
also be reckoned with later adjectival formations. 

Among adverbs derived from verbs, (^eihopLevo)^ seems to be 
peculiar to the iST. T.'"^ 


4. a. Siibstantives and Adjectives. The compound nouns 
whose first part also is a noun are numerous in the K. T. 
Although many of these words are not to be found in Greek 
authors, yet there is nothing in their formation which is contrary 
to analogy. Compare in particular ^LKaLOKpLala (Leo Gr. p. 163), 
aipareK^vaia, raTreivlc^pwv — like €va€ß6(j)pcov, Kparacocppaiv 
Constant. Porphyr. IL 33, and in later writers even lovBato^pcov, 
€XXr]v6(f)pcov Cedren. I. 660, Theophan. I. 149 — and raireLvocppo- 
crvvr) (comp. /xaraLocppoavvr] Constant. Man. 657), aKXrjpoKapBia, 
aKXripoTpd-^TfKo^ (from which we find crKXiqpoTpa^TfKLa and (jkXt)- 
poTpa-^rjXidv in Const. Man.), aKpaßvarla,^ aKpoycovialo^, dX- 

^ In general, we might perhaps assume that the later popular language con- 
founded the forms, and used erxpKivos also in the sense of a-apxiKo;, especially as 
adjectives in ivos do not always denote substance or material (comp. äv^pc^Tivog) ; 
see Fritz. Jio77i. II. 47, Tholuck, Hebr. p. 301 sq. Somewhat similar in German 
is the use of das Inwendige {of a man) for das Innere: tlie former had at 
one time a more limited meaning. Since, however, afipx.i>coc had beyond doubt 
already established itself for the language of the N. T., there is no ground 
for such an assumption in this case. [Comp. Delitzsch on H. vii. 16 ; also 
Tisch, on 1 C. lii. 1, who maintains that the two words are synonymous in the 
N. T.] 

2 [It also occurs in Plutarch {Alex. 25). For xipecf^iKos see Plato, Polit. 288 a.] 

3 That is, if (with the Ehjm. Mag. ) we derive this word from ßv^u>, ß6a>. This 
derivation has been recently controverted by Fritzsche {Rom. I. 136), on the 
ground that ßvu does not seem to have the meaning tegere (as this etymology 
assumes), and that the word, so derived, wovild contain no reference to any part 
of the body in particular, and would therefore be unintelligible from its vague- 


XoTpioeiriaKoiTo^ ^ (comp. aWorpioTrpayfjioo-vpr] Plat. Hep. 4. 
444 b), äyOpcoTTapecTKo^ (Lob. p. 621), iroTaiJL0(f)cp7)To^ (comp. 
v8aTo(f)6p7]To<; Const. Man. 409), KapSLojvct)(TT7]<; (KapSi67rX7jKTo<i 
Theophan. I. 736, KaphLOKoXdirTT]^ Leo Gr. 441), aTjroßpcoTo^;, 
6(f)6a\fMoSov\€La, €lBci)\oXaTp7]<;,^ elZcökoövTov (Cedren. 1. 286, 
comp, the abstract elhcoXoOvala Theophan. 415), hea [xo^vka^ 
(v(OT0(f)v\a^ Theophan. I. 608), opKw^ioala (comp. airco/uLoo-la, 
KarcojjLocria), iraTpoTrapähoTo^ {deoirapahoTo<; Theophan. I. 627), 
tcra77eXo9 (Theoph. L 16), eviT6pL(TTaT0<^, 7ro\v7roiKLXo<;, the 
adverb TrafiTrXTjOel (the adjective Tra/jLTrXrjOrj^; is found in good 
writers), elXt/cptvrj<;, elXiKplveta (Fuhr, Diccvarch. p. 198). The 
nearest approach to the compound hevTep67rp(DTo<^, L. vi. 1 (?), 
is found in SevrepoSeKaTT] (Hieron. in Ezecli. c. 45) ; as the one 
means second-tenth, the other means second-first^ A(c^eKa<^vXo^, 
the neuter of which is used as a substantive in A. xxvi. 7, is 
supported by rerpacpuXo^; (Her. 5. 66). — The first part of the 
compound is more rarely a verb, as in eOeXoOprjaKela self-imposed 
worship : compare iOeXoSovXla. 

The adjectives whose first part is a privative exhibit nothing 
anomalous, though many of them may not have been used in the 
written language (ajxejavoi^TO^, äve^epevvrjro^, ave^L'^VLaaro^;). 
The only peculiar word is dv6Xeo<;, which Lachm. has received 
in Ja. ii. 13 on good authority, in the place of dviXeco^; ; Greek 
writers used dvrjXeTj^, or at any rate äveXer^^ (Lob. p. 710). 
'AviXeof; would be formed on the analogy of äveXin<;,airai<^, 
and may have been chosen for its resemblance in sound to eXeo? 
in the same clause. Buttmann (IL 467) maintains that the 
initial a of ärevl^eLv (from the adj. arevrj^) is the so-called " a in- 

ness. The former argument seems to me to have more force than the latter. I 
am inclined liowever to think that uxpoßvcrTia. is not an unintentional corruption 
of äxpoToo-^ia, but a euphemistic alteration of this word, made designedly in 
such a way that tlie latter part would convey the meaning refertus, turgens 
(ßvüi). It is in the nature of euphemistic expressions to be vague and general : 
those among whom they are current easily come to an understanding about 
their meaning. 

' [Recent editors receive the more correct form a.xxoTpn^r'Krx.o'ro;.] 
^ Comp. ävfpuTo?.uTpris Kpliraem. p. 743, •prvpa-oXa.rpiis VnvAiym. 134, Geo. Pisid. 
Heracl. 1. 14. 182, y^ivhoXurpn; Tlieodos. Acroas. 2. 73 ; also x,f"^'^°^'*-'^P^^i '-^ 
common word in the Jiyzantine writers. 

•^ [On this woi'd see Tischendorf's long note (ed. 8), and comp. Tregelles and 
Alford in loc, "Wieseh;r, Syn. ])p. 203-215, Kllicott, JJint. L. p. 174, Scrivener, 
Critic, p. 515, M'Clellan, Ncv) Test. p. 690 sq. The word is retained by Tisch., 
bracketed by Lachm. and Alford, banislied to the margin by Tregelles and by 
Westcott and Hort. — Ou ihhoPpnfTKÜx see Expositor, xii. 295-297.] 


tensive ; " but it is better (with Lob. Path. I. 35) to take it for 
a fonnativum} See further Doderlein, Dc a inteiisivo sermonis 
Grccci{\iv\. 1830).^ 

5. Vcrhs. When the hist part of the compound is a verb 
(that is, in verha composita), the verbal root is retained un- 
altered, as a rule, only when the first part is one of the so-called 
old prepositions (Scaliger in Lob. Pkryn. p. 21") 6, Buttni. IL 
469 sq.). In other cases the verb properly takes its termination 
from a noun derived from the root ; as ähwarelv, o/jLoXoyelaOac, 
vovOerelv, evepyerecv, rpoirocpopelv,^ 6p6oTO/jLelv (comp. 6p9o- 
TOfila Theophan. contin. p. 812), äyaöoepjelu and ayadovp- 
yelv,^ fjuerpLOTradelv, etc. 

It cannot however be denied that there are some isolated ex- 
ceptions to this rule ; Scaliger himself had discovered Sv^6i>7]aK(o 
in Euripides, comp. Buttm. II. 472. Hence we must also derive 
€vSoK€Lv from hoKelv directly, and not (as Passow maintained) 
through an intermediate noun Boko^;, see Fritz. Iioin. II. 370 : 
the word originated in a mere union of eu and hoicelv in pronun- 
ciation, comp. Buttm. II. 470. The same applies to KapahoKelv, 
which must not be referred to hoKevco (Fritzschior. Opusc. 
p. 151) ; a noun KapahoKo^ does not exist.^ 

'OfjLeipeaOat also (the reading of the better MSS. in 1 Th. 
ii. 8, for L/jLeipeaOai) would be admissible, even if derived from 
ofjLov, opuö^, and elpeiv (Fritz. Mark, p. 792). We do not indeed 
meet with any other verb thus compounded with opbov, for ofxa- 
Bid) comes from o/MaSo^;, and ofioSpo/jbetv, ofioSo^elv, ofjuevveretv, 
6fi7)peveLv, 6/jio^vyelv, o/jLtkelv, and even opLOvoelv (Buttm. IL 

^ [In favour of Buttmann's view see Don. Gr. p. 334, New Cr. p. 348 sq. 
Lobeck's words are : a ;^a/v&;, tÜvu, oKiWu, aTifx.'^^ adjectiva in «j exeuntia fingi 
non potuerunt nisi accedente vel pr?epositione (^i«;^;ay>j?, i^rsv»??, •xifKTvifx.'^ti), vel 
alia parte orationis (^öXf;^;ayr',-, tiiTEvr'?), quarum ubi nulla conveniebat, decursuni 
est ad praipositionem loquelareni a, quae, quia per se nihil significat, ideo ad 
formandum aptissima est. Curtius {Gr. Etym. pp. 195, 217) takes anr/is, 
affTtpx'is, as standing for äx-Tivr;?, av-a-npxis. In Curtius, Studien, vol. viii, will 
be found a full investigation of the subject by Clemm, who arranges all examples 
of prefixed a under the four heads, a protheticiim, copulatlvum, privativum, 
proepositlonale, agreeing with Curtius in connecting the two words (and also 

atriXyi^;, ocKpayyU) with the prepos. äva.] 

^ [In Rev. viii. 1, we should probably read ^fjttupov for ri/u.i&'pioy.] 

^ [For which several editors read rpo(po(popt7v, A. xiii. 18 (Dt, i. 31).] 

* On these forms see Buttm. II. 457. Against aiKoupyuv and olKovpyös (Tit. ii. 
5 V. I. ), comp. Fritz. De Grit. Conf. p. 29. [In Tit. I. c. oUovpyos is strongly 
supported, and is received by recent editors. ] 

* [See Jelf 346, Don. p. 339 sq., New Cr. p. 660 sq., Curt. Elucld. pp. 167 sqq.] 


473), are in like maimer directly derived from nouns. A diffi- 
culty would also be presented by the genitive which is here go- 
verned by the verb ; compare Matth. 405. The first objection, 
however, should perhaps not be pressed in regard to a word 
borrowed from the popular spoken language. If ixelpeaOai — 
which is found in Nicand. Tlier. 400, iov Ifjueipeo-Oac — were the 
original form, fieLpeaOat and o/xelpeadai might exist together 
as collateral forms, as easily as Svpeadat and oBvpecrOat, : in- 
deed ofieipecrOaL may perhaps be the true reading here (Lob. 
Path. I. 12)} 

A compound peculiar to Hellenistic Greek is Trpo^coTroXrj- 
TTTetv, — 7rpo<;(07ro\y7rT7]<;, iTpo<;w7roXri'^La (Theodos. Äcroas. 1. 
32), airpo^coTToXyiTTCü^; (Acta Apocr. p. 86). A corresponding 
verb is dKaraXTjTrrelv, Sext. Emp. I. 201 ; with the concrete de- 
rivative compare BcopoXrJTTTr]^ and ipyoX^Trrrj^; (LXX) ; and with 
the abstract irpo^coTroXrjylria compare ipcoToXTj-yfrLa, Ephraem. 
pp. 3 1 4, 7 8 9 0, Meet. Eugen. 4. 2 5 1 . Several nouns like tt/oo?- 
coTToXrjTTTTy?, 6avaTr)(^bpo^^ in which the second part is derived 
from a verb, whilst the first denotes the object, etc. (Buttm. IT. 
478), are peculiar to the N. T. ; as Se^coXaßo<;, one ivho takes a 
place at the right of any one, hence an attendant. From these 
compounds are again derived, not only abstract nouns — to which 
class cTKTjvoTrrjyLa belongs, formed as if from o-Kr)vo7rr)y6<;, accord- 
ing to a common analogy, like KXovoTrTjyia, — but also verbs, as 
XiOoßoXelv from Xi6oß6Xo<; (comp. dvOoßoXelv, OrjpoßoXelv, rjXio- 
ßoXelaÖai, etc.), opOoiroSelv from opdoirov^, he^LoXaßelv (Leo 
Gr. p. 175) : see Buttm. IL 479. 

In verha decomposita that preposition by means of which the 
compound became a double compound naturally stands first, as in 
a.TriK^i)(€.(T6aij (TvvavTiXafxßdvecrßaL. AtaTraparpißr), 1 Tim. vi. 5, WOuld 
be at variance with this rule if it signified misplaced diligence or 

^ [ The form with o is now generally received here, and is the reading of good 
MSS. in Job iii. 21, EUieott considers it a late form of l^upoftai : " as it seems 
])robable tliat (/.ufofjicci is not an independent verb, but only an apocopated form of 
\fi.i'ifQfjLa.i 'metri causa,' it seems safer to consider ofjulpofjcttt a corrupted and perhaps 
strengthened form of the more usual verl)." Similarly Jowett in loc, who adds 
that the ])seudo-form was supported perhaps by an imaginary deriv.ation from 
of/,ov and I'/piiv. Compare however Lobeck /. c, ; '* vocales autem longas deteri 
tam contra naturam est, ut picne credam primitivum fuisse af/,upu amo vel of/,upu 
quod codd. optimi N. T. praebent." Westcott and Hort agree with Lobeck in 
writing ö^., not ö/u,.] 

^ A sindlar compound is alSä^'/it ; from avrof, ri'^iiv, H'Sur^ai (Buttm. 11. 458). 


useless dUpui'ing. Tho only moaning wliicli SiaTrapaTf). can liavo 
is contimml (endless) enmifles, co/lisions ; the other signification 
would require 7rapa8/,arpt/?>/. As however most of the MSS. are 
in favour of SiaTraparp., which Lachmann has received into the 
text, it has been supi)ose(l — even by Fritzsche {Mark, p. 796^) — 
that in this particular instance the prepositions are transposed. But 
SiaTrapaTpißrj, in the sensc given above, is not unsuital)le in this 
passage. The other compounds with Sia-rrapa, viz. SunrapaKv-rrTe- 

crOaL 1 K. vi. 4, and BLaTraparrjpeiv ^ 2 S. üi. 30, are in accordance 
with the rule as regards their meaning : the former word however 
is doubtful, see Schleusner, Tlies. Phil. s. v. 

UapaKaraOrjKrj is equivalent in meaning to TrapaO-^Kr], see Lennep, 
Phalar. Ep. p. 198 (Lips.), Lob. p. 312 ; the latter is better 
supported in the N. T. The MSS. similarly vary between the 
two words in Thuc. 2. 72 (see the commentators), and also in 
Plutarch, Ser. Find, (see Wyttenb. II. 530) : comp, also Heinichen, 
Ind. ad Euseh. III. 529. 

In Biblical Greek we meet with many compounds and double 
compounds which do not occur in Greek authors.^ In particular, 
w^e find the simple verbs of earlier waiters strengthened through 
the addition of prepositions, which, so to speak, exhibit to the 
eye the mode of the action ; as indeed a love for what is vivid 
and expressive is a general characteristic of the later language. 
Thus we have KaroAtöa^eiv, to stone down; i^opKL^eiv, as if to ex- 
trad an oath from a man, put on oath; i^aa-TpaTrrav, to flash 
forth; cKya/xt'^€tv, to give away in marriage {out of the family), 
elocare ; Sicyeipetv, iiavareWeiv, i^ofioXo-yelv, and many others. See 
my 5 Progr. de Verhör, cum Prepos. compositor, in N. T. usu (Lips. 

In the same way, and for the same reason, compound and 
doubly compound adverbs (and prepositions) came into use in later 
Greek, as eTravw, KarevojTrtov, Karivavrt. In the Byzantine writers 
such formations are carried to a still greater extent than in the 
Bible ; compare for instance KareTravü) in Constantine Porphyro- 

Eem. 1. Personal names, particularly such as are compound, 
are frequently found in the N. T. in the contracted forms which 
especially belong to the popular spoken language, and these abbre- 
viations are sometimes very bold (Lob. p. 434, comp. Schmid on 
Horat. E]jp. 1. 7. 55) ; as 'AttoA-Aws for 'ATroXAwi/tos, 'Apre/xas for 
'ApT€/At'S(i)po9 (Tit. iii. 12), Ni;/x</>as for Nv/xc^dScopo? (Col. iv. 15),* 

^ [All uncial MSS. haveßxi. No one now will agree with Fritzsche 
I. c. : '* patet igitur voc. 'hiex.Tpißa.l miris modis praepositione «ra/ia-esse diremtum, 

quum exspectes Ta/)aS/aT/)/^a/. "J 

^ [To these Ellicott adds '^txfapa.yu Greg. Nyss. II. 177, Itocrapaffvpu Schol. 
Lucian II. 796 (Hemst.). The Lexicons give also compounds of ^<aira/)a with 
ctwriu,,ß, ^o;i^ri, o^vvu (?), but all from late writers.] 

3 [Comp. Ellicott's notes on Ph. iii. 11, E. i. 21.] 

* Keil [Philologus II. 468) believes he has found this name in an inscription 


ZTyvas for Z7]v6Bo)po<; (Tit. iii. 13), Hapjxevas for UapfieviSr)^ (A, 
vi. 5), Ar;/xas probably for ArjfjLea<;, AT]/x€TpLO^, or A-q/xapxo'S (Col. 
iv. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 10), probably also 'OAv/xTra? for 'OA.v/A7rto8wpo? 
(Rom. xvi. 15), 'E7ra<^pas for 'E-n-acßpoStTo^ (Col. i. 7, iv. 12), and 
'Epfxa^ for 'E/3/xo8oüpo9 (Rom. xvi. 14), 0ei;8as for ©euSwpos (i.e. 
0eoS(o/Do?), and AovKa? for Lucanus. In Greek writers, compare 

'AAe^as for 'AA.e^ai/S/>os (Jos. Bell. J. 6. 1. 8), Mrjvas for MT^vdSojpo?, 

Hvöäs for UvOoSuypo?, MerpSs (Euseb. ZT. E. 6. 41).i 

Many names in a? not circumflexed are abbreviated forms ; as 
'A/xxAtas for Ampliatus (Rom. xvi. 8),^ 'AvrtVas for 'AvrtTrarpos 
(Rev. ii. 13), KAeoTras for KAeoTrarpos (L. xxiv. 18), and perhaps 
2tAa5 for ^tAouavos, see Heumann, Pcecile III. 314. If SwTrarpo? 
(A. XX. 4) is for Swa-iVarpo?, which is found in some MSS., the 
contraction is nearer the commencement of the word, but is 
also very bold : ^SwTrarpo? may however be an uncontracted 
name. On the other hand, those proper names which are com- 
pounds of Aaog, and which by the Dorians (Matth. 49) — and 
probably by others also — were contracted into Aas, appear in 
the N. T. in their uncontracted form, as NtKoAaos, 'Ap;(eAao9. 
That at an earlier period also the Greeks contracted personal 
names on euphonic grounds is shown by examples in K. Keil's 
Spec. Onomatolog. Gr. p. 52 sqq. (Lips. 1840). In German 
there are numerous examples of similar abbreviations and con- 
tractions, sometimes very harsh ; as Klaus from Nikolaus, Käthe 
(Kathi) from Katharina. Several of these have become indepen- 
dent names, occurring even in the written language ; as Fritz 
(Friedrich), Heinz (Heinrich), Hans, Max : comp. Lobeck, Prolegg. 
Path. p. 504 sqq.3 

Rem. 2. The Latin words taken up into the Greek of the IST. T. 
— almost without exception substantives,^ denoting Roman judicial 
institutions, coins, articles of clothing — have nothing peculiar in their 
form. Latin verbs in a Greek dress first appear at a later period, 
in the Greek of the Lihri Pseudejngraphi, the Byzantine writers, 
etc. See Thilo, Ada App. Petri et Pauli I. 10 sq. (Hal. 1837). 

in Bockh. [Laclim. writes Nj^i^av as the name of a woman (reading avTYis for 
avTov) : SO Westcott and Ilort. See Lighttbot's note.] 

1 [See Mullach, Vuhj. pp. 22, 165.] 

2 [In this passage 'a^wX/ätöj (Tisch., 'A^^rx/aro?) is well supported.] 

•"* On Greek personal names in general, see Sturz, Progr. de Nominih. Grcecor. 
(included in his OpuHcula : Lips. 1825), W. Pape, Wörterh. der griech, Ehjen- 
namen (lirschw. 1842), {Hall L. Z. 1843, No. 106-108), and Keil, Beiträge zur 
Onom.atologie, in ScluKÜdewin, Philologus Vol. 2 and 3. 

* [The only exce[)tion appears to be (ppxyiXXou. The remark here made as to 
the meaning of these substantives is hardly correct : see an article by Prof. 
Potwin in hiUiulheca Sacra 1875, pp. 703-714 (also 1880, p. 503). See further 
Mullach, Valg. pp. 52, 54. J 







Section XYII. 
the article as a pronoun. 

1. The Article 6, r), to, was originally a demonstrative 
pronoun, and in epic poetry (to which belongs the quotation 
from Aratus in A xvii. 28, tov yap yevo^ icrfjuev) it is regularly 
used as such. Compare Soph. (Ed. R. 1082, t^9 yap iricpv/ca 
fMTjTpo^ (Matth. 286) : for prose compare Athen. 2. p. 37. (Jelf 
444, Don. p. 345.) This use of the article is not usual in prose, 
except — 

^ A. Khiit, VindicicB Artie, in N. T. (Traj. et Alcmar. 1768-1771 ; the 
book itself is ^^^'itten in Dutcli) ; G, Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Ar- 
ticle ajjplied to the criticism and the illustration of the N. T. (London 1808). 
Compare Schulthess in the Theol. Annal. 1808, p. 56 sqq. ; E. Valpy, A short 
treatise on the doctrine of the Greek Article, according to Middleton, etc., briefly 
and compendiously explained as applicable to the criticism of the N. T., — prefixed 
to his Greek Testament with English notes (3 vols. : ed, 3, Lond. 1834). Emmer- 
ling's Einige Bemerk, über den Artikel im N. T. (in Keil and Tzschirner's 
Analekt. I. ii. 147 sqq.) are of no importance. On the other hand, Bengel has 
some brief but striking remarks on the subject in his note on Mt. xviii. 17. [See 
also A. Buttmann, Gr. pp. 85-103, Webster, Syntax, pp. 26-44, and especially 
Green, Gr. pp. 5-82, where the subject is very carefully treated. The references 
to Middleton in the following pages are made to the edition by Rose (Cambridge, 


(a) In the very common formulas o fxev . . . 6 Se, ol jjuev 
. . . . ol 8e/ — sometimes standing in relation to a subject pre- 
viously mentioned, the one .... the other, as in A. xiv. 4, xvii. 
32, xxviii. 24, G. iv. 23 [?], H. vii. 20, 21 (Sclia3f. Dion. 421) ; 
sometimes simply partitive, without any such reference, as in 
E. iv. 11, eSco/cev tov<; fiev airoaToXov^, tou? Se iTpo^r}Ta<;,TOv<; Se 
K.rX.y some .... others. 

(b) In the course of a narration, when the simple o Be (ol 
Be) is used for hut he, etc., in opposition to some other subject ; 
as Be e(j)7] Mt. xiii. 29, ol Be aKovo-avre^i iiropevÖTjaav ii. 9, ii. 
14, ix. 31, L. iii. 13, viii. 21, xx. 12, Jo. i. 39, ix. 38, A. i. 6,^ 
ix. 40, al; Xen. An. 2. 3. 2, ^sch. Dial. 3. 15, 17, Philostr. 
Ap. 1. 21. 5, Diod. S. Exc. Vat. pp. 26, 29, aL 

For OL [xkv . . . . ot 8e are used also ot jxlv .... aXXoi Si Jo. 
vii. 12, ot /xev . . . aXXoL Si . , . erepot Si Mt. xvi. 14 (Plat. Legg. 
2. 658 b, ^1. 2. 34, Pal^eph. 6. 5), nvk . . . . ol Si A. xvii. 18, 
compare Plat. Legg. 1. 627 a, and Ast in loc. In Greek authors we 
find still greater variety in expressions of this kind (Matth. 288. 
Rem. 6, Jelf 764). The relative is sometimes used instead of the 
article in such opposed clauses : as 1 C. xi. 21, os [xkv Tram, os SI 
fxeOvet' Mt. xxi. 35, ov fX€V eSetpav, ov Sk airiKT^ivav k.t.X., A. xxvii. 
44, Ptom. ix. 21, Mk. xii. 5; compare Polyb. 1. 7. 3, 3. 76. 4, 
Thuc. 3. 66, and see Georgi, Hier. I. 109 sqq., Herrn. Fig. p. 706. 
Once, OS fxlv . . . oAAos Si, 1 C. xii. 8 (Xen. An, 3. 1. 35) ; o filv 
(neuter) . , . kol irepov, L. viii. 5 sqq. : ^ in 1 C xii. 28 there is 
evidently an anacoluthon. See, in general, Bernh. p. 306 sq. (Jelf 
816. 3. h). 

In Rom. xiv. 2 o Si does not stand in relation to os fxiv ; 6 is simply 
the article, and belongs to aaO^voiv. 

2. In Mt. xxvi. 67, xxviii. 17, we find the partitive ol Be 
without a preceding ol fiev, so that only the second member of 
the partition is expressed. Tlie former passage, epeirrvo-av et? 
TO irpo^oiTTOv avTOv Kol €KoXd<pi(rav avrov, ol Be eppdirtaav, 
would be more regular if ol puev were inserted before i/coXd(j)C' 
aav. When however Matthew wrote this word, a second mem- 
ber of the sentence was not as yet definitely before his mind ; 
but when he adds ol Be epp. it becomes evident that the eKo\d<\>. 

^ On tlie acc(!ntuation see Herrn. Vi<i. p. 700, and on tlie other side Krüger p. 

97. [Jelf 444. (Jbs. G, Lidd. and Seott s. v.] 

2 [A mistake : per]ia])S .Jo. xxi. 6. In Jo. v. 11 we find o$ Vi without o; f^iv.] 
^ [Also ö f^tv. . . xut clxxo, Mk. iv. 4, .5. A. IJnttniann ([). 102) nnnarks that 

0, h, ol, cci, are the only Ibrnis of the article which arc used with [/.iv and Vi in 

the N. T., if we except E. iv. 11.] 


applied to a part only of the mockers. Compare Xen. ITdL 1. 
2. 14, ol al^d\ü)TOL . . . co^ovTO e? AeKeXeiav, ol S' e? Meyapa' 
Cyr. 3. 2. 12; and see Toppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 292, Bremi, Demosth. 
p. 273 (Jelf 7G7. 2). Similarly, in Mt. xxviii. 17 we have first 
the general statement, ol evSe/ca /jLaOrjral .... lS6vTe<; avjov 
irpo^eKiivrjo-av : that this, however, refers only to the greater 
part, is clear from the w^ords which follow, ol he iBlcrTacrav} 

In L. ix. 19, ol Be would regularly refer to the ixa6r)Tai 
mentioned in the preceding verse, and would indicate that all 
returned the answer wliich follows ; but from aXkot 8e . . . ak- 
\oL Se, it is clear that it was given by a part only. The cor- 
responding verse in Matthew (xvi. 14) is expressed wdth more 
exactness : ol 8e elirov ol fiev ^Icodvvrjv .... aXXot Be ... . 
erepoc oe. 

Section XVIII. 


1. "When 6, r), TO, stands before a noun as a true article, 
it indicates that the object is conceived as definite,^ either from 
its nature, or from the context, or by reference to a circle of 
ideas which is assumed to be familiar to the reader's mind : 
Mk. i. 32, oTe eBv 6 7]Xco<;' Jo. i. 52, oyfreade top ovpavov dvew- 
yora' 1 C. XV. 8, oy^Trepel tu) efcrpcofiari Mcf^Orj Ka/xal (he is the 
only abortion among the apostles) ; A. xxvii. 38, eKßaXKÖfjuevoi 
Tov (TLTov eh T-qv OaXaaaav, the wheat (the ship's store of pro- 
visions) ; L. iv. 20, TTTu^a? to ßißXlov (which had been handed 
to him, ver. 1 7) diroBov^; tg5 viryperr}, the synagogue-attendant ; 
Jo. xiii. 5, ßdXXei vBcop eU tov viTTTTjpa, the hasin (which, as 
usual, was standing by), comp. Mt. xxvi. 26 sq. ;* Jo. vi. 3, 

^ [So Bengel (as an alternative) and Meyer : Alford, Ellicott {Hist. Led. 
p. 411), Ebrard {Gospel Hist. p. 462, Trans.), Stiev {Words of the Lord Jesus, 
VIII. 278, Trans.), object to this interpretation, though not on grammatical 
grounds. ] 

^ Compare Epiphan. Hcer. 1. 9. 4. — Herrn. Prcpf. ad Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 
p. 15: "Articulus quoniam origine pronomen demonstrativum est, definit infi- 
nita idque duobus niodis, aut designando certo de multis aut qute multa sunt, 
cunctis in unum colligendis." 

3 [See Jelf 446 sq., Don. p. 350, Middleton p. 32 sqq., Madvig 8: for the N. T. 
see especially Green, Gr. ch. IL, sections 1 and 2.] 

* [The article should probably be rejected in these two verses : comp. L. xxiv. 
30, 1 C. xi. 25.] 


avrfkOev eU to 6po<^, into the mmintam (which was situated 
on the farther shore, ver. 1); 1 C. v. 9, eypa^jra iv rfj iiriaToXf} 
(which Paul had written to the Corinthians before this present 
epistle); A. ix. 2, '^rijaaro iincrToXa^ et9 AafxaaKov wpo^ tcl^ 
o-vvaywycU, to the synagogues (which were in Damascus) ; 
Kev. XX. 4 [Äec], eßaalXevcrav fiera Xptarou ra -^iXca err], 
the thousand years (the known duration of Messiah's kingdom) ; 
Ja. ii. 25, *Paaß rj Tropvy vTroSe^a/Jbevrj roij'^ äjyi\ov<;, the spies 
(familiarly known from the history of Eahab) ; H. ix. 19, 
XaßüLtv TO alfia tcöv yuhcryjjdv koX tmv Tpdycov, with allusion 
to Ex. xxiv. 8. So in 1 C. vii. 3, tj) juvatKl 6 avrjp ttjv 
6(f)6iXr]p aTToSiBoTco, the debt (of marriage) ; vii. 29, o Kaipo<; 
(TvveoTaXfjievo<^ ecTTiv, comp. ver. 26, hia T7]v eveaTcocrav ävdjKTjv, 

The article thus refers to well-known facts, arrangements, 
or doctrines (A. v. 37, xxi. 38, H. xi. 28, 1 C. x. 1, 10, 2 Th. ii. 
3, Jo. i. 21, ii. 14, xviii. 3, Mt. viii. 4, 12); or to something pre- 
viously mentioned, Mt. ii. 7 (ver. 1), L. ix. 16 (ver. 13), A. ix. 
17^ (ver. 11), Jo. iv. 43 (ver. 40), A. xi. 13 (x. 3, 22), Ja. ii. 3 
(ver. 2), Jo. xii. 12 (ver. 1), xx. 1 (xix. 41), H. v. 4 (ver. 1), 
Eev. XV. 6 (ver. 1). Thus o ep^ofievo^ signifies the Messiah, 
7] Kpi(ji<^ the Qlessianic) universal judgment, i) ypacj)^ the Scrip- 
tures, 7] acDTT^pla the salvation of Christ, 6 Tretpd^wv the tempter 
(Satan), etc. So also of geographical designations : rj €pr]fjbo(;, 
the wilderness par excellence, "^^"i^^, — i. e., according to the 
context, either the Arabian wilderness (of Mount Sinai), Jo. 
iii. 14, vi. 31, A. vii. 30, or the wilderness of Judah (Mt. 
iv. 1, xi. 7). 

Another case deservin<:j mention is the use of a sinsjular 
noun with the article to denote, in the individual which it par- 
ticularises, the whole class,^ — as we ourselves say, The soldier 
must he trained to arms: 2 C. xii. 12, to, arnxela tov diroaToXov 
Mt. xii. 35, o dyaOo'^ dvOpüyiro^ .... eV/3riXXet dyaOa' xv. 11, 
xviii. 17, L. X. 7, G. iv. 1, Ja. v. 6. Akin to this is the use of 
the singular in parables and allegories: Jo. x. 11, 6 ttol/jltjv 6 
KaXo<; T7)v yjrv-^rjv avrov tlOtjo-lv (it is the ideal Good Shepherd 
that is spoken of), Mt. xiii. 3, e^?{k66v 6 aTreipcov tov airelpetv, 
where Luther incorrectly has a soiuer. See Krüger p. 103 sq. 

^ [Corrected (for ix. 7) from cd. .5, wIhüc tlu; words of the verse are quoted.] 
'^ [Jelf 446. /3, Green p. 21, where the very couiiaou use of the jplural to 
denote a class is also noticed. ] 


Ivem. According to Külinöl, the article sometimes includes the 
pronoun this ;^ e.g. in ]\lt. i. 25 [y/Vr.], tov vlov for tovtov tuv vluv 
Jo. vii. 1 7, yvcjo-crat Trept rrj<; ^thax'j'i' ver. 40, €k tov ox^ov A. 
XXVi. 10, Tr]V irapa. twv dp^tc/jecov i$ov(rLav XaßijiV Mk. XUl. 20, A. 
ix. 2. In all these instances, however, the definite article is quite 
sufficient. Heumann has been still more liberal in this doctrine of 
the article, and he has been followed by Schulthess (A^. Krit. Journ. 
I. 285) : both Schulthess and Kühni)! refer most incorrectly to Matth. 
§ 28G, where such a use of the article (which indeed is hardly to 
be found in j^rose, except Ionic) is not the subject of discussion. 
As to Col. iv. 16, orav avayviacrOfi Trap vfuv y cVicttoAt^, we too say 
u-hen the later is read, and nothing more than the article was required, 
since no other epistle than the present could be thought of : some 
authorities annex avrrj, but the ancient versions must not be reckoned 
with these.2 In 1 Tim. i. 15 the demonstrative pronoun is not 
required even in German [or English], any more than in vi. 13 
[? 14]. In 2 C. v. 4 TÜ) is not put 8€lktlkC)<s for rovro) ; the article 
simply points to the o-kt^fos spoken of in ver. 1. In Col. iii. 8 ra 
TTcivTa is not ''these, all of them" (intensive), but the tuhole, viz. 
the sins which are (a second time) specified in the words which im- 
mediately follow. In Rom. v. 5, too, y (iX-n-Lq) is simply the article ; 
see Fritz, in loc. Least of all can 6 Koa-fxos be taken for ovto<; 6 
K6(rjxo<; : it is the world as opposed to heaven, the kingdom of heaven, 
not this world as opposed to another Koo-fxo^. The passages in Greek 
authors which might be claimed as instances of this idiom (Diog. L. 
1. 72, 86) are to be judged of in the same way. Indeed one cannot 
see what could induce the apostles to avoid expressing the demon- 
strative pronoun in certain passages, in which it was present to 
their thought, and to substitute for it the article, which in any case 
has much less force : mere instinct would revolt at this. Besides, 
expressiveness of language is a characteristic of N. T. Greek, and 
of later Greek in general. 

In Greek authors, especially the Ionic and Doric,^ and after- 
wards in the Byzantine writers (Malal. pp. 95, 102), the article is 
sometimes used for the relative. In the N. T., SavAos 6 koI Uav- 
Aos (A. xiii. 9) has been regarded as an example of this usage (see 
Schleusner s. v. 6), but wrongly : 6 koX II. is here equivalent to o 
Kttt KoXov^evo^; IlauXo? (Schaefer, L. Bos. p. 213), and the article 
retains its ordinary meaning, just as in SaGXo? 6 Tapo-eu?. Comp, 
the similar phrase nt/cos 6 koI Zevs, Malal. p. 19 sq. (ed. Bonn), 
Ad. Thoni. p. 34. One example however may be quoted from 
Hellenistic writers, viz. Psalt. Sal. 17. 12, iv rois Kplfxaa-L, to. 

1 Compare Siebelis, Paumn. I. 50, Boisson. Bahr. p. 207. Compare the 
German das when emphasised. 

2 [*' The genius of the language into which the translation is made may 
require the introduction of connecting particles or words of reference, as can 
be seen from the italicised words in the Authorised Version," AVestcott in 
Smith's i)ic«. of Bible, IT. 528.] 

3 Matth. 292 : comp. Elleudt, Lex. Soph. II. 204 (Jelf 445). 


TTotet cVt Trjv yrjv, if the reading is correct. ^ In Wisd. xi. 15, 
Avhere 6v (Alex.) is probably a correction, rov must be regarded as 
the article. 

2. So far, Greek usage agrees with that of all languages 
which possess an article. In the following cases, in which the 
definite article would not be employed in German [or English], 
the use of the Greek article is idiomatic : — 

(a) Eev. iv. 7, to ^mop e'^op to irpö^^coirov w^ avOpoairov (Xen. 
Cyr. 5. 1. 2, oixoiav Tat<; Sov\ac<; el')(e ttjv eadrjra' Theophr. 
C/i. 12 (19), Toi)^ 6vv^a<^ /jbeyaXov^ ^^wv Polyten. 8. 10. 1, al.) ; 
A. xxvi. 24 [Eec.'], fiejaXy ry cjxovr] ecpy xiv. 10 [Bee], 1 C. xi. 
5 (Aristot. Anim. 2. 8, 10, Lucian, CatapL 11, Diod. S. 1. 70, 
83, Pol. 15. 29. 11, Philostr. Ap. 4. 44). We say. He had eyes 
as, He sjpoke with a lottd voice, etc. By the use of the article 
here something which belongs to the individual is pointed out 
as possessed of a certain quality.^ This is shown still more 
clearly by H. vii. 24, aTrapdßaTov e^ev tt^v lepwavvrjv, He hath 
the 2)riesthood as unchangealle (predicate), Mk. viii. 17, IP. 
ii. 12, iv. 8, E. i. 18 ; and by Mt. iii. 4, et^e to epSvfia avTov 
cLTTo TpL'^cop Ka/jLrjXov PiBV. ü. 18 (whlch differ from the previous 
examples through the addition of the pronoun). With the 
former examples compare further Thuc. 1. 10, 23, Plat. Phcedr. 
242 b, Lucian, Dial. Deor. 8. 1, Fugit. 10, Eun. 11, Diod. S. 

1. 52, 2. 19, 3. 34, ^1. Anim. 13. 15, Pol. 3. 4. 1, 8. 10. 1 ; 
and see Lob. p. 265, Krug. Dion. H 126. (The article is 
sometimes omitted, e.g. in 2 P. ii. 14: comp. Aristot. Anim, 

2. 8, 10, with 2. 11.) 

(h) 1 C. iv. 5, T0T6 6 €7raLPo<; yep'TjaeTat eKaaTcp, the 2'>Taise 
(that is due to him) ; Eom. xi. 36, avTw rj Bo^a et? r. alaypa^' 
xvi. 27, E. iii. 21, G. i. 5, 1 P. iv. 11, Eev. v. 13 ; Eev. iv. 11, 
a^Lo^ el Xaßelp ttjp Bo^ap k. ttjp TifjLjjp- Ja. ii. 14 [-Rec], rt to 
o</)e\o9 eap irlaTip Xeyrj ri? e')(^etp, the advantage (to be expected), 
1 C. XV. 32 ; 1 C. ix. 18, r/-? fioL iaTip 6 fjLLa66<; (Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. II. 212). In all these cases the article denotes that 

^ [The Vienna MS, reads oU Ton?.] 

' [" 8omothinf( is Jissuiiicd as Ixiloiigin;^ to the snhjcot, and a quality is then 
predicated oi' tliat S()iii(;tl)iii;(." (Jlyde, Syntax ]). 22. We must use the personal 
jtroTioun, or elian^'i; the construction of the sentence : c.ff. in H. vii. 24, He hath 
J lis pritütkood nnchanijeahk, or The prieslhood which He hath is unchamjeable. 
See Don. p. 528, Green, Or. p. 60 in[.] 


which is due, requisite (Kriig. p. 98, Jelf 477. 1). And thus 
the article is often found where we should use a personal 
pronoun ; as Eom. iv. 4, tcS epya^o/xivcp 6 fxtaOo^ ov Xoyi^erat 
his reward, ix. 22, L. xviii. 15; compare Fritzsche, Aristot. 
Amic. pp. 46, 99. 

No example occurs of the use of the article in appellations 
(Matth. 268, Kost p. 428, Schaef. Dem. IV. 3G5) ; for in Hev. vi. 8, 
ovojua avTw 6 öavaros* vüi. 11, to ovofxa tov do-repos A-cycrat o 
aif/LvBos'^ xix. 13, KiKX-qrai to ovo/xa avTov 6 Aoyo? tov Oiov, a name 
is in each case mentioned which belongs individually and exclusively 
to the object spoken of. 

3. Adjectives and partici^^les when nsed as substantives 
are, like substantives, made definite by the article : 1 C. i. 27, 
01 ao^ol' E. vi. 16, ßekr^ tov irovTjpov- G. i. 23, 6 Bicokcov vfia^;' 
Tit. ill. 8, OL n-e'n-LO-TevKOTe^ rw deep- 1 C. ix. 13, ol ra lepa ipya- 
^ofjuevoi' Mt. X. 20, 2 C. ii. 2, x. 16, 1 C. xiv. 16, H. xii. 27. 
Instead of a noun we may have an indeclinable word, as an 
infinitive or an adverb (2 C. i. 17), or a phrase, as Eom. iv. 14, 
01 6K vo/jlov H. xiii. 24, ol diro ty]^ ''IraXia^ (Diod. S. 1. 83), A. 
xiii 13, ol irepl TlavKov Ph. i. 27, tcl irepl v/jlmv k.t.X., 1 C. xiii. 
1 (Krug. p. 1 6 sq., Jelf 436,457). Even a complete sentence 
may have the article (to) prefixed to it; e.g. A. xxii. 30, yvcbvac 
TO TUaT7]yopeiTac (iv. 21, 1 Th. iv. 1, L. xxii. 2, 23, 37), Mk. ix. 
23, ecTTev avTco to- el hvvr)\ G. v. 14, 6 7ra? v6fio<; iv ev\ X070) ire- 
TrXrjpcjrac, iv Ta>' dya7rrjcr€i<; tov irkr^aiov aov, Eom. viii. 26, 
xiii. 9, L. i. 62 :^ these sentences are for the most part quotations 
or interrogations, which are in this way rendered more pro- 
minent. Compare Plat. Gorg. 461 e, Phced. 62 b, Rep. 1. 352 d, 
Demosth. Con. 728 c, Lucian, Alex. 20, Matth. 280, Stallb. Plat. 
Euthyph. p. 5 5, and Men. 2 5. "When a mere adverb or a genitive 
thus receives the article (especially the neuter to), it becomes 
a virtual substantive :^ L. xvi. 26 [Rec.\ ol iKeWev Jo. viii. 23, 
TCL KCLTco, TCL oLvco' Jo. xxl. 2, ol TOV ZeßsSaLoV L. XX. 25, Ta 
Kalaapo^' Ja. iv. 14, to ti)^ avpLOV 2 P. ii. 22, to Tri<; dXrjdov^ 
irapoLfMia*;' 1 C. vii. 33, tcl tov Kocrfiov 2 P. i. 3, 2 C. x. 16, 
Ph. i. 5, Jo. xviii. 6, al (Krug. pp. 32, 107 sq.). We are often 
obliged to use a periphrasis, the import of the true proverb, what 

^ [The article is somewhat doubtful iu Rev. vi. 8.] 

2 [Lünemann adds Mt. xix. 18. The use of to with indirect questions is most 
common in St. Luke (A. Buttm. p. 96).] 

3 Elleudt, Arr. ÄI, I. 84, Weber, Dem. p. 237. 


is due to Ccesar} In 1 P. iv. 14, Huther (in ed. 1) wrongly 
takes TO Tri<; So^rjf; as a mere periphrasis for rj Sc^a : sucli a 
use of the neuter article is not found in the N. T. 

The neuter ro is sometimes prefixed to nouns in order to designate 
them materially, as sounds or combinations of sounds : G. iv. 25, to 
yap "Ay a/3 k.t.X., the word Hagar.^ 

The substantivised participle with the article occurs in several 
combinations in which our idiom will not allow the article ; viz. as 
a definite predicate of an indefinite subject, e.g. G. i. 7, nves da-tv 
ol Tapa<T(rovT€<s v/xa?' Col. ii. 8, fxr) rts vfxa^ ecrrat 6 o-i;Xaya)yoüi/* and 
also Jo. V. 32, L. xviii. 9, — or as a definite subject where logically 
an indefinite might have been expected, e.g. Eom. iii. 11, ovk co-tlv 

orvvLwv (Jo. V. 45), 2 C. xi. 4, et 6 ip^ofjLCvos äXXov ^Irjcrovv K-qpvcr- 
<T€L. In all these cases, however, the quality is conceived as a 
definite concrete, only the person who really acts as this concrete 
remains undefined. The rapacro-ovres vfxa? actually exist, but they 
are not particularised : ^ if he that cometh (the preacher appearing 
among you, who will certainly come, — person and name are of no 
consequence), etc. ; the man of understanding does not exist, etc. 
The following examples are similar : Lucian, Ahdic. 3, rjcrav rtves 

01 /xavLa<s dpxTjv rovr ctvat vo/xi{ovt€s- Lysias, Bon. Aristoph. 57, 
€6crt Ttves 01 TrposavaXio-KOvre^' Dio Chr. 38. 482, ■^Srj TLvi? elcrLV ol 
KOL rovTo SeSoLKore';''^ and the common phrase elalv ol Aeyovres 
(Matth. 268 mit., Jelf 817, Obs. 3); also Xen. An. 2. 4. 5, 6 -^yrj- 
o-ofxevof; ovSeU co-rar Thuc. 3. 83, ovk ^v 6 SiaXva-oiV Porphyr. 
Ahst. 4. 18, ovSeU eo-TLv 6 KoXda-oiv Gen. xl. 8, xli. 8, Dt. xxii. 27, 
l^S. xiv. 39 :^ see Bernh. p. 318 sq. (Jelf 451. 2).^ In A. ii. 47, 6 
KvpLo<s TT-poq^TiOu Toi)s oTw^o/xcVovs TTj iKKX-qata means. He added to 
the church those who became saved (through becoming believers) ; 
He increased the church by the addition of those in the case of 
whom the preaching proved effectual : comp. Krug. p. 103 sq. 

Between ttoXXol and ol ttoXXol, used as a substantive, the usual 
distinction is observed. Ot ttoXXol, which is very rare in the 
N. T., means the well-known 7nany (2 C. ii. 17) in marked contrast 

^ We niif,'lit however say in German das (hohen, das des morgenden Tags 
(the morrov)'s= what will hapi)en on the morrow), die des Zehedüus (those who 
belong to Zebedee, e.g. his sons) : see § 30. 3. 

^ ["To denotes that * Hagar' is regarded not as a person, but as an object of 
thought or of sjjeeeh. It need not necessarily mean ' i\\Q xoord Hagar;' com- 
pare for instance E. iv. 9, to l\ «.Aßn ri Unv ; where ro is the statement, for the 
preceding word was not ^inßy,, Init uvußd;." Lightfoot, Oal. ]). 193 (ed. 6).] 

** Compare in Ijatin sunt f/ui existimant, as distinguished fi-om siDit (jui existi- 
ment: see Zumjit § .5(53. [JJon. Lat. Or. p. 3r)3, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 365.] 

* [Also Dcmostli. J)e Cor. p. 330, »jWv nm ol ^laff^povn?' Xv.n. De Re Eq. 
9. 2, i)x.t(xr «V opyi'C,oi ri; o fjt.-^ri xiyuv k.t.X. (where somc omit <5) : these examples 
are given by JJernliurdy, I.e.] 

•' Herrn. Soph. (Ed. Ii. 107, Doederl. Soph. (Ed. C. p. 296, Dissen, Dem. Cor. 
p. 238. 


^vitll a unity (Ivom. xii. 5, ot ttoXXoi cV a-Cj/xd io-fxcv' 1 C. x. 17) or 
witli »a particular individual (Rom. v. 15, 19), or, without such con- 
trast, iJic inuUifudc, the great viass^ vnlgns (with the exception of {i 
few individuals), Mt. xxiv. 12 : coni])arc Schaif. Meld. pp. 3, C5. 

4. A noun defined by ovto<;, eKelvo^, as attributives,^ always 
takes the article, as denoting a particular individual singled out 
from a class ; in this respect the Greek idiom differs from our 
own : L. ii. 25 avOpcoiro'; ovto<;,1j. xiv. 30 ovto<; 6 äu6pa)7ro<^, 
Mt. xiii. 44 ^ tov a<y pov eKelvov, ]\it. vii. 22 iv eKelvr) rfj rjiiepa, 
Mt. xxiv. 48 KaKo<^ hov\o<; €/c€lvo<;. In L. vii. 44, too, the 
correct reading is /SXeVe^? ravTrjv ttjv yvvacKa, tliougli — accord- 
ing to Wolf, Dem. ZepL p. 263, Ellendt, Lex. SojjJi. II. 243, 
Kriig. p. 126 (Jelf 655. 4) — tbere would be no reason for re- 
jecting rauTTjv fyvvoLKa, since the woman was present. ISTames 
of persons also witli wliicli ovto<; is joined, usually take the 
article : see H. vii. 1, A. i. 11, ii. 32, xix. 26 (vii. 40). 

The noun with which Tra? is joined may either have the article 
or not. TIaaa 7roXt9 is eveiy city, iraaa rj it6\l^ tlic loliole city 
(Mt. viii. 34), compare Eom. iii. 19, Xva irav aroiia (ppajy kol 
v7r68tKo<; <yevr]rac ira^ 6 Koapio^; : iraaau ^eveai cdl generations, 
whatever their number, iraaai at ^eveal (Mt. i. 17) all the 
generations, — those which (either from the context or in some 
other way) are familiar as a definite number. Compare for the 
singular Mt. iii. 10, vi. 29, xiii. 47, Jo. ii. 10, L. vii. 29, Mk. v. 
33, Ph. i. 3 ; for the plural, Mt. ii. 4, iv. 24, L. xiii. 27, A. xxii. 
15, G. vi. 6, 2 P. iii. 16 (where there is not much authority for 
the article). This rule is not violated.^ in Mt. ii. 3, iracra 'lepo- 
aoXvpba all Jerusalem,{oY Jerusalem is a proper name (see below, 
no. 5) ; or in A.ii. 3 6, Tra? oIko^; 'lapar/X the whole house of Israel, 
for this too is treated as a proper name (1 S. vii. 2 sq., Neh. 
iv. 16, Judith viii. 6). E. iii. 15, iraaa iraTpid, is obviously 

^ It is otherwise when these pronouns are predicates, as in Eom. ix. 8, 

TUV70C TiXVa, TOV 0ioZ' L. i. 36, OVTOi fjLYiV iKTOg IffTtv' Jo. IV. 18, TOVTO ClXyJi; 

ilfriKOLi- Jo. ii. 11, al. ; compare Fritz. Matt. p. 663, Schsef. Plut. IV. 377 (Don. 
p. 352). 

2 [Corrected for L. ii. 35, xiv. 13, Mt. xiii. 14.] 

^ Such nouns as those specified in § 19. 1 may dispense with the article even 
with TO.? all, whole, as 5ra<ra yfi; comp. Poppo, Thuc. III. ii. p. 224. In the 
N. T. this particular word always has the article, as Mt. xxvii. 45, l^i "raa-ay 
T«y y^iv Eom. X. 18, al. Most of the passages quoted by Thiersch {de Pentat. 
Alex. p. 121) to prove that the LXX omit the article with ^rS? (all) are quite 


every race ; Col. iv. 12, iv iravrl deXijfjLarc rod Oeov, in every 
will of God, in everything that God wills ; 1 V. L 15,€v irdari 
avaarpo(f>fj, in omni vitce modo. Still less can Ja. i. 2 iraaav 
X^pav iy/i]aaade, E. i. 8 ev Trdarj ao(\)ia (2 C. xii. 12, A. xxiii. 
1), in the sense of all (full) joy, in all (full) tuisdom, be con- 
sidered exceptions ; the nouns here are abstracts denoting a 
whole, and hence the meaning is the same whether we say 
every ivisdom or all wisdom (Krlig. p. 124). In E. ii. 21, how- 
ever, the weight of authority is in favour of iraaa olKoBofjurj, 
though, as the subject is the church of Christ as a whole, the 
ivJiole huilding is the correct translation : ^ yet the article is ac- 
tually found in A and C, and it might easily be left out through 

lias with the participle — which is not in itself equivalent to a noun 
—deserves special notice. Has opyi^o/xevos means every one being angry 
(if, or when he is angry, in being angry), comp. 1 C. xi. 4 ; but Tras 6 
opyt^ofx., Mt. V. 22, is every angry man, =7ras osrtg opyilerai. Com- 
pare L. vi. 47, xi. 10, Jo. iii. 20, xv. 2, 1 C. ix. 25, 1 Th. i. 7, al. 
(Kriig. p. 103). The same remarks apply to the two readings in L. 
XI. 4, iravri o0€tAoi/Ti, Travri roJ 6<^. ; see Meyer.^ 

TotovTos^ is joined to an anarthrous noun in the sense oi any such, 
of such a kind ; Mt. ix. 8 i^ova-ca rotavTr), Mk. iv. 33 TOLavTat irapa- 
ßoXai, A. xvi. 24 -irapayyeXiaTOLavT-q, 2 C. iii. 12. But if a particular 
object is pointed out as such or of such a sort, the noun naturally 
takes the article : Mk. ix. 37 eVrwj/ roioi^rcoi/ TratSiW (in allusion to the 
TTULStov mentioned in ver. 36, which as it were represented the world 
of children), Jo. iv. 23, 2 C. xii. 3 (comp. ver. 2), 2 0. xi. 13 (Sch^f. 
Demosth. III. 136, Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. p. 1). 

"Ekuo-to^, which is seldom used as an adjective in the K T., is 
always joined to an anarthrous noun f as L. vi. 44 iKaarov SevSpov, 
Jo. xix. 23 cKtto-Tü) CTTpaTLwry, H. iii. 13 KaO^ kKaar-qv rjpepav (Bornem. 

^ [See Ellicott in loc. As however this rendering is altogether opposed to the 
usage of the N. T., it is surely preferable to regard St. Paul as speaking of the 
many olKohof/.«.', wliich together make up the temple : Vaughan quotes Mt. xxiv. 
1, Mk. xiii. 1, 2, as aptly illustrating this meaning of the word. On itacism see 
Scrivener, Cril. ]>. 10.] 

^ [On vui add Jeir 454. 1, Don. p. 354, Green p. 54 sq., Middleton p. 102 sqq. 
nZi rarely comes between the art. and the noun, as in A. xx, 18, G. v. 14, 1 
Tim. i. If) («V«f) ; plural A. xix. 7, xxvii. 37: see Green p. 55, Jelf L c. On the 
meaning of ^rSj when used with abstracts, see Ellicott on E. i. 8 ; comp. Shilleto, 
Dem. Fals. Lafj. ])p. 49, 100.] 

^["The article with Toiouroi denotes a known person or thing, or the whole 
class of such, but not an uiid(!rmed indivi(hial out of the class ; as in that case 
ToioZro? is anarthrous : see Kühner on Xenoph. Mem. I. 5. 2, and Kiiiger, Spracht. 
§ 50. 4. G." Ellicott (on G. v. 21). Compare Buttm. Griech. Or. i). 337, Jelf 
453. ß.] '■ 

4 Orelli, Isocr. Antid. p. 255 (9). 


Xen. Jn. p. G9). In Greek authors the article is not uncommon ; see 
IStallb. rhxt. rhilcb. p. 93, Hipp. Maj. 1G4 (Jelf 454. 2, Don. p. 354). 
To auTo Tn^ev/xa is the sanu: !Sj)irU ; avTo to TrvcG/xa, He Himself (of 
Himself) the Sj)irit (Kriig. p. 125). For the former, comp. Kom. ix. 
21, Ph. i. 30, L. vi. 38 [7<Vc], xxiii. 40, 2 C. iv. 13; for the latter, 
Rom. viii. 26, 1 C. xv. 28, 2 C. xi. 14, Jo. xvi. 27. In both cases 
the article is always inserted in the N. T. with appellatives.^ In 
Greek authors it is sometimes omitted ; in the former case chiefly 
in epic poetry (Herm. Opusc. I. 332 sqq.) and later prose (Index to 
Agath. p. 411, Bonn ed.) ; in the latter, in the better prose writers 
also. 2 

5. Proper names, as they already denote definite individuals, 
do not need the article, but they frequently receive it as the 
existing symbol of definiteness. First, in regard to geographical 
names : ^ — 

(a) The names of countries (and rivers) take the article more 
frequently than those of cities : comp, in German die Schiueiz, 
die Lausitz, die Lombardei, das Elsass, das Tyrol, etc. [in 
English, ilie Tyrol, the Morca.\ The article is never or very 
seldom omitted with ^lovSala, ^A'^aia, ^Iophdvr)<;, ^IraXia, Ta- 
Xikala, Mvcrla, 'Aala (A. ii. 9, yet see vi. 9, 1 P. i. 1), ^afidpeca 
(L. xvii. 11), ^vpia (A. xxi. 3), Kprjrrj (yet see Tit. i. 5). 
AiyviTTo^ never takes the article ;^ in regard to MatceSovia the 

usaG^e varies. 

(b) With names of cities the omission of the article is most 
common wdien a preposition precedes (Locella, Xen.Up)Ii.'p^.22o, 
242), especially Iv, ek, or eV ; see the Concordance under the 
words AajxaaKo^;, 'lepovaaX^jfji, 'lepoaoXvfia, Tdpao<;, "E(p€(TO<;, 
'AvTco^eca, KairepvaovfjL: only Tu/309^ smd' Pco fir} vary strangely. 

(c) Sometimes a geographical name, w^hen it first occurs in 
the narration, is without the article, but takes it on renewed 
mention. Thus we find ew? 'AOtjvojv in A. xvii. 15, on the first 
mention of the city, but in ver. 16 and in xviii. 1 the article is 

^ Hence L. xx, 42, xxiv. 15 [where the article is omitted icith proper 7iam€s], 
are not exceptional instances : see Bornem. Schol. p. 158. In Mt. xii. 50 it is 
quite unnecessary (with Fritzsche) to take xutos for avros. 

- Krug. Dion. H. 454 sq., Bornem. Xen. An. p. 61, Poppo, Ind. ad Cyr. s. v. 

=* [Jelf 450. 2, Don. p. 347, Green p. 29, ^liddleton p. 82. ^ In the N. T. names 
of rivers ahcays have the article, except perhaps in Rev. xvi, 12.] 

* [Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, accept the article in A. vii. 36.] 

* [TCpo; never has the article in the N. T. In the 7th edition AViner substi- 
tutes for Tvpos Katffdpua and Tpuei;.'\ 


inserted ; et? Bepoiav A. xvii. 10, but ev rfj B. ver. 13 ; Siaßa^ 
6t9 MaKehovLav A. xvi. 9, and then 97 MaK. six times, the article 
being omitted in xx. 3 only ;^ r/Xüo/iev eh MCKt^tov A, xx. 15, 
aiTo tt}? MlK. ver. 17. 

'Icpovo-aXyjx has the article only four times, G. iv. 25, 26, Eev. iii. 
1 2 (in which passages it is accompanied by an attributive), and A. v. 
28 (rrjv 'I., — contrast with this L. xxiv. 18, A. i. 19, al.). With lepo- 
croXvjxa the article is used by John only, — in v. 2, x. 22, xi. 18 [and 
ii. 23] ; in each instance the Avord is in an oblique case. 

6. The use of the article with names of persons can hardly be 
reduced to any rule ; see Bernh. p. 317, Madv. 13 (Don. p. 347, 
Jelf 450. 1) : a comparison of passages will readily show that 
the practice of the writers in this respect is very irregular.^ 
The rule ^ that a proper name has not the article wdien first 
introduced, but receives it on repeated mention, will not go far 
in explaining the actual usage : comp. Matt, xxvii. 24, 58, with 
ver. 62 ; Mk. xv. 1, 14, 15, with ver. 43 ; L. xxiii. 1 sqq. with 
verses 6 and 13 ; Jo. xviii. 2 with ver. 5 ; A. vi. 5 with ver. 8 sq.; 
viii. 1 with ver. 3 and ix. 8; viii. 5 with verses 6, 12.^ The same 
may be said of the remark of Thilo (Apocr. 1. 163 sq.), that 
proper names are usually without the article in the nominative, 
but often take it in oblique cases.^ Hence the authority of the 
best MSS. must in the main decide whether the article shall be 
inserted or not.^ Proper names which are rendered definite by 

^ [The best texts omit the article in A. xvi. 10, 12, xx. 1.] 

^ It is well known that in German the use of the article with names of persons 
is peculiar to certain provinces ; Der Lehmann, which is the regular form in the 
►South of Germany, would in the North be considered incorrect. 

^ Herrn. Pra'f. ad Iph. Aul. p. 16, Fritz. Matt. p. 797, Weber, Dem. p. 414. 

* A person mentioned for the hrst time may take the article as being well known 
to the reader, or as being in some other way sufiiciently particularised. [A 
combination of these rules (Middleton p. 80) will perhaps explain most cases. 
"We may at least say (with A. ]>uttmann, p. 86) that Avhen a writer wishes 
simplj'- to name a person he may omit the article ; but he may use it to indicate 
notoriety or previous mention, or for the sake of perspicuity, e. g. to i)oint out 
the case of an indeclinable noun : see further Grcjen p. 29. In the examples 
wliicli follow Winer sometiiiKis ([uotes readings which are now doubtful, but the 
fluctuation is (^uite sufficient to establish the truth of his remarks.] 

^ Compare especially the want of uniformity in the use of the article with 
Uc/.vXi){ and ]lirpo{ ill the Acts of the Aposthis, H/Xaroj always has tlie article in 
.John [excfipt (probal)ly) in xviii. 31], and almost always in Matthew and Älark ; 
but in the Acts never. Tiro; never takes the article. 

^ That in the superscrijitions of letters the names of persons are without the 
article, may be seen from tlie collections of Greek letters, from Diog. L. (e.g., 3. 
22, 8. 49, 80, 9. 13), from IMutarch, Apophth. Lac. \). 191, from l^ucian, Parasit. 
2, al. Compare 2 Jo. 1. To this rule we should probably refer the superscrip- 

SECT, xviil] the article before nouns. 141 

explanatory appositions, denoting kindred or officejdo not usually 
take the article, since it is only by means of the apposition that 
tliey are made definite : the practice of Greek autliors agrees 
with this (Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 154, — see however Sclioem. Isajus 
p. 41 7 sq., Diod. S. Fxc. Vat. p. 37). Thus we find 'laKwßov tov 
aheXcfiov rod Kvplov G. i. 19, ^Iovha<^ 6 ^I<TKapicoTr}<^ Mt. x. 4, ii. 1, 
3, iv. 21, xiv. 1, Mk. x. 47, xvi. 1, Jo. xviii. 2, 1 Th. iii. 2, Horn, 
xvi. 8 sqq., A. i. 13,xii. 1, xviii. 8, 17: so also Pausan. 2. 1. 1, 
3. 9. 1, 7. 18. 6, ^schin. Tim. 179 c, Diog. L. 4. 32, 7. 10, 13, 
8. 58, 63,Demosth. Tlicocr. 511 c,Apatur. 581 b,PAorm.605 b, 
al., Conon. 728 b, Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 8, 2. 1. 5, Diod. S. Uxc. Vat. 
pp. 20, 22, 39, 41, 42, 51, 69,95, al. When however the personal 
name is indeclinable, and its case is not at once made evident 
by a preposition or by an appositional phrase (as in Mk. xi. 10, 
L. i. 32, Jo. iv. 5, A. ii. 29, vii. 14, xiii. 22, Eom. iv. 1, H. iv. 7), 
the insertion of the article was more necessary, for the sake of 
perspicuity: Mt. i. 18, xxii. 42, Mk. xv. 45, L. ii. 16, A. vii. 8, 
Eom. ix. 13, xi. 25, G. iii. 8, H. xi. 17, al. (Hence in Eom. x. 
19^ Paul would certainly have written fxr] tov 'IcrparjX ovk 
€<yv(o ; had he intended 'lapaijX to be the object of eyvco : comp. 
1 C, X. 18, L. xxiv. 21.) In the genealogical tables of Mt. i. and 
L. iii. this principle is observed throughout, and even extended 
to the declinable names. It should be observed that the MSS. 
frequently vary in regard to the use of the article with proper 

We may remark in passing that the proper name ^lovSa, where it is 
to be characterised as the name of a territory, never occurs in the 
LXX in the form rj 'lovSa, r^? 'I., k.t.X. : we always find either y yrj 
'lorSa (I K. xii. 32, 2 K. xxiv. 2), or the inflected form rj 'lovSam 
(2 Chr. xvii. 19). Hence the conjecture of r»}? 'lovSa in Mt. ii. 6 is 
destitute of probability even on philological grounds. 

7. The substantive with the article may as correctly form the 
predicate as the subject of a sentence (though from the nature 
of the case it will more frequently be the subject), since the 
predicate may be conceived as a definite individual. In the 
N. T. the predicate has the article much more frequently than 

tion 1 P. i. 1, n'sTpog .... ixkiKroTi •'TrihnfjLon' and also Rev. i. 4. Even 
those predicates which are characteristic of the subject dispense with the article 
in addresses, Diog. L. 7. 7, 8. 

^ Fritzsche in loc. has adduced dissimilar passages ; and for G. vi. 6 he must 
have meant vi. 16. 


is commonly supposed^ (Krlig. p. 106) : Mk. vi. 3, ov)(^ ovt6<; 
ianv 6 rifCTcov^is not this the (well-known) carpenter? vii. 15, 
eKelvd icrrc ra KOLvovvra rov avOpcoirov, those arc the things that 
defile the man ; xii. 7, ovto^ ianv 6 KXrjpovofior xiii. 11, ov yap 
€(TT€ vfjL6L<; 01 Xa\ovvT€<;' Mt. xxvi. 26, 28, tovto iarc to crü)/xd 
fMov, TOVTO eaTi TO al/jid fiov Jo. iv. 42, ovt6<; laTiv o acoTrjp 
Tov Kocr/JLOV 1 C. X. 4, 7] Se ireTpa rjv o XpcaTo^;' xi. 3, 7ravT0<; 
dvSpo<; rj KecpdXr) 6 XpiCFTO^; ecTTO' xv. 56, 77 Svpa/XL^ r?)? dfjuapTia^; 
6 v6fio<^' 2 C. iii. 17, Kvpio<; to Trvevfjbd iaTiV 1 Jo. ill. 4, ?; 
djiapTLa 6<ttIv y] dvofjuia' Ph. ii. 13, o ^eo? eaTiv o evepycov 
E. ii. 14, avTO^ ydp iaTiv rj elpyprj rjjjLcov. Compare also Mt. 
V. 13, vi. 22, xvi. 16, Mk. viii. 29, ix. 7, xv. 2, Jo. i. 4, 8, 50, iii. 
10, iv. 29,2 V. 35, 39, vi. 14, 50, 51, 63, ix. 8, 19, 20, X. 7, xi. 25, 
xiv. 21, A. iv. 11, vii. 32, viii. 10, ix. 21, xxi. 28, 38, Ph. iii. 3, 
19, E. i. 23, 1 C. xi. 3, 2 C. iii. 2, 1 Jo. iv. 15, v. 6, Jude 19, 
Ptev. i. 17, iii. 17, iv. 5, xvii. 18, xviii. 23, xix. 10, xx. 14. In 
the following passages the MSS. vary more or less: Eev. v. 6, 8, 
A. iii. 25, 1 Jo. ii. 22, 1 C. xv. 28, Jo. i. 21. In one instance 
two substantives, one of which has the article and the other not, 
are combined in the predicate: Jo. viii. 44, otc '^^evo-Trj^ 6(ttI koI 
6 TraTTjp avTov (ylrevBov^;) , he is a liar and the father of it. In 
Greek authors also the predicate frequently has the article : 
compare Xen. Mem. 3. 10. 1, Plat. Phmdr. 64 c, Gorg. 483 b, 
Lucian, Dial. M. 17. 1, and see Schaef. Demosth. III. 280, IV. 
35, Matth. 264. Eem. 

Hence the rule often laid down, that the subject of a sentence may 
be known from its having the article, is incorrect ; as was already 
perceived by Glass and Kambach {histit. Hermen, p. 446).^ 

^ [These exceptions may be classified and explained without giving up the 
general rule tliat the article usually distinguishes the subject from the predicate 
(Don. p. 346, Jelf 460). When the predicate receives the article, it is usually in 
reference to a previous mention of the word, or because tlie proposition is such 
that the subject and predicate are convertible (Middl. p. 54, Don. Neiü Crat. p. 
522). Compare Green's remarks (p. 35 sq.), which perhaps will explain most 
of the examples : " When the article is inserted after a verb of existence, the real 
predicate of the sentence is a simple identity, the identity of the subject with 
souK'thing else, the idea of which is a familiar one. But wlu^n the word or 
combination of words follow! Mg the verb of existence is anarthrous, then the 
circumstances or attributes signified by it form the })redicate, instead of a 
mere identity." See Don. j). 348 s(i., Ellicott on 1 Th. iv. 3 and 1 Tim. vi. 10. 
Liinemaiin refers to Dornseiircn, De articulo apud Gra'cos ejimjue usu in prce- 
diculo (Amstel. 1856), as affording a copious collection of examples, without 
any real enIarg(Mnent of tlie theory. ] 

^ Prolialdy also Jo. iv. 37 ; see Meyer. [The article before xXn^tvos is probably 
spurious. ] 

a Compare also Jen. Lit. Z. 1834 : No. 207. 


8. In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impos- 
sible that the article shoukl be omitted \vhere it is absolutely 
necessary (compare on the other hand § 19), or inserted where 
it is not required : ' opo^; can never be the mountain, nor can 
TO opo'i ever mean a mountain.^ The very many passages of 
the N. T. in which older commentators — professedly following 
the analogy of the Hebrew article (Gesen. Z^. p. 655)^ — sup- 
posed 0, r), TO, to stand for the indefinite article/ will be easily 
disposed of by the careful reader. 1 Th. iv. 6, TrXeoveKrelv iv tw 
TTpdyfjuaro, means to overreach in husincss (in business affairs) : ^ 
Jo. ii. 25, i^LvcoaKev rl rjv iv Ta> avOpwirw, in the man with whom 
he (on each occasion) had to do, — in every man (Kriig. p. 98) ; 
compare Diog. L. 6. 64, irpo^ top crvvLaravra rov nralha koI 
\eyovTa &)? €V(j)ve(TraTo<; iaro . . . elire k.t.X., to him who recom- 
mended the hoy, i.e. to every one who did this. In Jo. iii. 10, 
<jv el 6 hi^daKoko^ rod ^laparjx, Nicodemus is regarded as the 
teacher of Israel Kar i^ox^v, as the man in whom all erudition 
was concentrated, in order that more force may be given to the 
contrast expressed in Kal ravra ov yivcoaKec^;; compare Plat. Crit. 
51a, Kal av <f)rja6C<; ravra ttolcjv SUaca Trpdrrecv 6 jfj dXr^Oela 
Trj<i dpeTrj<; e7rLfjL€\6/jL€vo<; (Stallb. Plat. Euth. p. 12, Valcken. Eur. 
Phcen. p. 552, Krug. p. 101, Jelf 447). In H. v. 11, o X0709 
is the (our) discourse, that which we have to say : comp. Plat. 
Phcedr. 270 a. 

On the other hand, there are cases in which the article may 
be either inserted or omitted with equal objective correctness ^ 

1 Sturz, in his Lexic. Xenoph. III. 232, even quotes passages from Xenoplion 
as containing examples of the use of for r)?. To all this applies what Sell refer 
(ad Plutarch. ) somewhere says : Tanta non fuit vis barbarse liugute, ut GrrecsB 
ipsa fundamenta convellere posset. 

2 Kuinoel on Mt. v. 1, Jo. xix. 32, iii. 10. 

3 [In his Lehrgeb. I. c. Gesenius thus explained several passages in the 0. T. 
(as 1 S. xvii. 34, Gen. xiv. 13, al.), but he afterwards entirely retracted this 
opinion; see his Thesaur. p. 361, Hehr. Gramm, p. 185 (Bagst. ): see also Ewald, 
Amf. Lehrb. p. 686, Kalisch, Hehr. Gr. I. 238 sq.] 

* This frivolous principle is not justified b}^ reference to commentators who 
in particular passages have attributed a. false emphasis to the article (Glass 138 
sqq.), or have pressed it unduly. Biihmer has discovered an extraordinary mode 
of mediating between the old view and the new {Introd. in Ep. ad Coloss. p. 

° [See Ellicott, Alford, and Jowett in loc, who agree in the rendering, "in 
the matter" (of which we are speaking) : see also Green p. 26 sq.] 

^ Thus it is easy to explain how one language even regularly employs the 
article in certain cases {oStos avopu-roi, tous (piXov; TonTor^on), in which another 
does not {this man, Götter glauben). Compare Sintenis, Plut. Themist. j). 190 : 


(Förtsch, ad Lys. p. 49 sq.). In Ja. ii. 26, to acofxa %«/3t9 ttvev ■ 
fxaTO<^ veKpov means the hody without sjnrit ; %ö)pt? tov irv. would 
be, ivitltout the spirit belonging to this particular body. In L. 
xii. 54, good MSS. have orav cSrjre ve^eXrjv avariWovcrav äiro 
8v(T/xü)v, whereas the received text has t^z^ vecf). Both expres- 
sions are correct : with the article the words mean ivhen ye see 
the cloud (which appears in the sky) rising from the west, — when 
the course of the cloud is from the west. In Col. i. 16, iv avrco 
eKTiaOr] ra irdvTa, the meaning of tcl iravra is the (existing) all, 
the totality of creation, the universe : irdvTa would mean all 
things, whatever exists. The article but slightly affects the sense, 
yet the two expressions are differently conceived : comp. Col. 
iii. 8, where the two are combined. In Mt. xxvi. 26 [i^cc] we 
have Xaßcov 6 'It^o-oi)? tov apTov (which lay before him); but in 
Mk. xiv. 22, L. xxii. 19, 1 C. xi. 23, the best MSS. have äpTov, 
bread, or a loaf. Compare further Mt. xii. 1 with Mk. ii. 2 3 and 
L. vi. 1 ; Mt. xix. 3 with Mk. x. 2 ; L. ix. 28 with Mk. ix. 2. So 
also in parallel members : L. xviii. 2, tov 6eov fir) ^oßov[jievo<; 
Kai ävOpcoTTOv fjbr) evTpeirojxevo^' xviii. 27, Ta dSvvaTa irapa 
äv6pco7roL<i BwaTci ecTTt irapa tq) Oeu)' xvii. 34, ecrovTai Svo eirX 
kXlv7](; fiLä<;' el?^ irapaXi^^OrjcreTaL Kal 6 eVe/^o? d(^e6r}aeTaL (one 
. . . the other; contrast Mt. vi. 24, xxiv. 40 sq.); 1 Jo. iii. 18, firj 
dyaTTCj/juev Xoyw firjSe Tg yXcoacrg (according to the best MSS.; 
comp. Soph. (^d. Col. 786, X.070) fiev iaOXd, Tolai 3' ep^yoicnv 
KaKd); 2 Tim. i. 10, 1 C. ii. 14, 15, Eom. ii. 29, iii. 27, 30, 
H. ix. 4,xi. 38,Jude 16, 19, Jo. xii. 5, 6,Ja.ii. 17,20, 26,Eev. 
XX. 1.^ Compare Plat. Bejx I. 332 c and d, Xen. An. 3. 4. 7, 
Galen. Temper. 1. 4, Diog. L. 6. 6, Lucian, Eunuch. 6, Porphyr. 
Ahsiin. 1.14. (The antithesis iv ovpavM Kal iirl T'fj<; ryij^; is not 
fully established in any passage, see Mt. xxviii. 18, 1 C. viii. 5;^ 
in E. iii. 1 5 the article is omitted in both members, without any 

There is however a clear necessity for the respective omission 

"Multa, quae nos indefinite cogitata pronuntiamus, definite proferre soliti sunt 
Gräici, ejus, de quo sermo esset, notitiam animo informatam praesunientes." 
Kühnöl misuses sueh remarks (ad Matt. p. 123). 

1 This lends support to my exposition of G. iii. 20, to wliicb it has always been 
objected that I have taken i7s for o ui. [The reading is doubtful in L. xvii. 34.] 

^ See Porson, Euri]). riimn. p. 42 (ed. Japs.), Kllendt, Arr. Al. I. 58, Lex. 
Soph. II. 247. 

<* [In Mt. xviii. 18, Tiseli. (ed. 8) and others read It) rtis y. and Iv ovp. in con- 
trasted clauses. In xxviii. 18 the reading is uncertain.] 



or insertion of the article in L. ix. 13, ovk clcrlv rjfxtu nXuov ^ ttcVtc 
apTOL Koi ix^i-c? 8uo- and ver. IG, \aßu)V tov<; tt. a/)rov9 kul Tov-i 
8. Ix0va<;. Also in Rom. v. 7, /xoA.19 v-n-ip Slkulov ti? airoOavilraL, vrrkp 
yap Tov ayaOov ro-xa rt? koX roX/xa aTroöavcu', for a righteous man (one 
who is upright, without reproach), for the kind man (i.e., for the 
man who has shown himself such to him, — for his benefactor) ; 
Riickert has unquestionably misunderstood the passage. In Col. 
iii. 5 we find four nouns in apposition without the article, and then 
a fifth, TrXcoi'ctVa, marked by the article as a notorious immorality, 
especially to be avoided, ^ further characterised by the Apostle in 
the words which follow, — for I cannot regard tjtl^ k.t.X. as referring 
to all the preceding nouns. In 2 C. xi. 18 there is no doubt that 
Paul designedly wrote (Kav^t^yTac) Kara rrjv crapKa, as differing from 
Kara o-apKa (a kind of adverb), though all recent commentators con- 
sider the two expressions identical in meaning. See also Jo. xviii. 20, 
Rev. iii. 17 ; also Rom. viii. 23, where a noun which has the article 
stands in apposition to an anarthrous noun, vloOeo-Lav a7reKSex6fX€voi, 
rrjv oLTroXvTpwa-Lv tov o-w/xaro?, waiting for adoption (namely) the 
redemption of the body. 

9. The indefinite article (for which, where it seemed necessary 
to express it, the Greeks used rl?) is in particular instances 
expressed by the (weakened) numeral et? : this usage is found 
mainly in later Greek.^ In the N. T., see Mt. viii. 1 9, irpo^eXdcov 
eh ypafifjLaTev<;' Rev. viii. 13, rjKovcra evo^i aerov. In Jo. vi. 9 
ev is probably not genuine (comp. Mt. ix. 18); and in Mt. xxi. 19 
fLLav avKYjv perhaps signifies one fig-tree, standing by itself. Eh 
TMv ira peart] fcoTcov, Mk.xiv.47, is like the Latin 'zmz^s adstantium: 
compare Mt. xviii. 28, Mk. xiii. 1, L. xv. 26 (Herod. 7. 5. 10, 
Plutarch, Arat. 5, Cleom. 7, ..Eschin. Dial 2.2f Schoem. Ismcs 
p. 249). The numeral retains its proper meaning in Ja. iv. 13 
[^cc], iviavTov eva; and still more distinctly in 2 C. xi. 2, 
Mt. xviii. 14, Jo. vii. 21. See, in general, Boisson. Eunap. 345, 
Ast, Plat. Legg. 219, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 398, Schaef. Long. 

1 "Weber, Dem. p. 327. Another case, in Avhich, of several connected nouns 
the last only has the article, for the sake of emphasis, is discussed by Jacobitz, 
Luc. Pise. p. 209 (ed. min.). 

^ So also sometimes the Hebrew "inS, see Gesen. Lg. p. 655, [Heh. Lex. s. v., 

T V 

Ewald, Ausf. L. p. 693]. The use of £?? in this sense arises from that love 
of expressiveness which has already been noticed as a peculiarity of later 

2 t;,- tZv -yroLo. might indeed have been used instead (compare L. vii. 36, xi. 1, 
al.), as in Latin suorum aliquis, etc. Both expressions are logically correct, but 
they are not identical. Unus adstantium really suggests a numerical unity, — 
one out of several. [Meyer (on Mt. viii. 19) denies that us is ever used in the 
K. T. in the sense of tU : on the other side see A. Buttm. p. 85. ] 



399.^ — An antithesis is probably designed in Mt. xviii. 24, 
el? 6(f)6L\€T7]<; /jLvpicov ToXcivTCüv. In 6*9 Ti? also, unus aliq^tis 
(Mk, xiv. 51 V. L, and, in a partitive sense, Mk. xiv. 47,^ L. 
xxii. 50, Jo. xi. 49), tI<; does not destroy the arithmetical force 
of el^ 

Rem. 1. In some few instances the use or omission of the article is 
also a mark of the distinctive style of the writer. Thus Gersdorf has 
shown (Sprachchar. pp. 39, 272 sqq.,) that the four evangehsts almost 
always write 6 Xptcrros — the expected Messiah, like 6 ipxo/JLevoq, — while 
Paul and Peter write Xpio-ros, when this appellation had become more 
of a proper name. In the Epistles of Paul and Peter, however, those 
cases are to be excepted in which Xpicrros is dependent on a preceding 
noun [which has the article],'^ as to evayyeXtov rov XpLcrrov, rj vTTOfxovrj 
Tov XpLCTTov, TO) aipaTL Tov XpLCTTov, for iu these XptcTTos always receives 
the article : see Rom. vii. 4, xv. 19, xvi. 16, 1 C. i. 6, 17, vi. 15, x. 
16, 2 C. iv. 4, ix. 13, xii. 9, G. i. 7, E. ii. 13, 2 Th. iii. 5, ah But 
besides these instances, the article is not unfrequently used by Paul 
with this word, not only after prepositions, but even in the nomina- 
tive, e.g. Rom. XV. 3, 7, 1 C. i. 13, x. 4, xi. 3, al. There is no less 
variation in the Epistle to the Hebrews : see Bleek on H. v. 5. 

Rem. 2. MSS. vary extremely in regard to the article, especially 
where its insertion or omission is a matter of little consequence ; and 
critics must be guided more by the value of the J\1SS. than by any 
supposed peculiarity of a writer's style. Compare Mt. xii. 1, crrdxva^ • 
Mk. vi. 17, ev (fivXaKYj (better attested than iv rfj ^.), vii. 37, dXciAovs- 
x. 2, ^apia-aioL- X. 46, vlo^- xi. 4, ttüjAov xii. 33, Ovcrioiv xiv. 33, 

' Bretschneider makes an unfortunate attempt to bring under this head 1 Tim. 
iii. 2, 12, Tit. i. 6, ^/a; ywaiKos dv'Äp' translating, He must be the husband of a 
wife, i.e. he must be married. But, not to mention that 1 Tim. iii. 4 sq. woukl 
not assign a sufficient reason for an injunction that only married men should be 
admitted to the office of iTiffKoxo;, no careful wTiter could use ils for the 
indefinite article where his doing so would give rise to any ambiguity, for we 
speak and write that we may be understood by others. It is true that in the 
expression "there came a man" numerical unity is implied, and homo allquis 
suggests to every one homo imus; but (jlIxv ywouica. 'ix.^it cannot be used for 
yuyalKo, £;^5/y, as it is possible for a man to have several wives (at the same time 
or successively), and hence the expression necessarily conveys the notion of 
numerical unity. ]>esides, one who wished to say a bishop must be married, 
would hardly say, a bishop must be husband of a mife. 

'^ [Quoted above without tu, which is omitted by some recent editors.] 

3 Heindorf, Plat. Soph. 42, Ast I. c, and on Plat. PoUt. 532, Boisson. Marin. 
p. 15. 

^ [I have inserted these words from the 5th edition of the German work ; in 
the 6th and 7th they are omitted, no doubt by accident. Ina single Epistle for 
instance, 2 Corinthians, we find ten exain])les of roZ XpitrroiJ after a noun with 
the article, and nearly as many of XpiffTov after an anarthrous noun. Such 
instances as KKpaxh tov Xp. 1 ('. xi. 3 (Col. i. 7), or to tpyov XpiffroZ Ph. ii. 30 
Laohm. (1 P. i. 11), are very rare. The coi)ious tables given by Kose in his 
edition of Middleton (pp. 486-406) cannot be fully relied on, as in many in- 
stances doubtful readings are followed. ] 


'IaKü)/?ov xiv. GO, ct9 fx€(Tov' L. ii. 12, eV <l>dTvr}' iv. 9, o vuk- iv. 29, 
۟>9 6(f)px'o<; Tov 0/30VS" vi. 35, vif/LiTTov' Jo. V. 1, l\-0m. X. lo, XI. IJ, 
G. iv. 24, 2 r. ii. 8, al. 

Ivem. 3. It is singular tliat commentators (with the exception 
indeed of Bengel), when, contrary to their usual practice, they have 
noticed the article in any passage, have in most instances explained 
it wrongly. Thus Kiihncil, after Krause (a very poor authority), sup- 
poses that the use of the article with iKKkrja-tq. in A. vii. 38 requires us 
to understand this word as meaning ccrta jyopuli concio. The context 
may indeed render this probable, but in point of mere grammar it is 
just as correct to render rj ckkX. (with Grotius and others) tJie con- 
gregation, ^^^"lb'^ Snp, and this would be as regular an example as any 
other of the use of the article. Nor are Kühnöl's remarks on A, viii. 
26 more than half true. Luke must have written rj eprjfxos (oSos), if 
he had wished to distinguish one particular road, well known to his 
readers, from the other road : if however he meant to say, this (road) 
is (now) desert, unfrequented, lies ivaste, the article would be as inad- 
missible in Greek as in our own language. In 2 Th. iii. 1 4 also (8ta 
rJ/s cVio-toAt}?) the commentators have noticed the article, and have 
maintained that its presence makes it impossible to join this clause 
■with the following verb o-rz/Aciovo-öe. This may perhaps afford an ex- 
planation of the omission of the article in two MSS. But Paul might 
very well say 8ta rrj^ eTrto-roÄTjs (Tr]fji€iov(r߀, if he at that time assumed 
an answer on the part of the Thessalonians : " Note him to me in 
the letter," — that which I hope to receive from you, or which you 
have then to send to me. See however Lunemann.^ 

Rem. 4. The article properly stands immediately before the noun 
to which it belongs. Those conjunctions however which cannot stand 
tirst in a sentence are regularly placed between the article and the 
noun : Mt. xi. 30, 6 yap ^vyd? p-ov iii. 4, rj 8e rpocfi-i]- Jo. vi. 14, ol 
ovv avOpwTTOL, etc. This is a well-known rule, which needs no further 
illustration by examples. See Rost p. 427, and compare Herrn. 
Soph. Antig. p. 146. 

Section XIX. 


1. Appellatives which, as denoting definite objects, should 
naturally have the article, are in certain cases used without it, 
not only in the N. T., but also in the best Greek writers : see 
Schsefer, Afelet. p. 4. Such an omission, however, takes place 

^ [Most commentators connect tliese words with Xoy^^ ; see Ellicott and 


only when it occasions no ambiguity, and does not leave the 
reader in doubt whether he is to regard the word as definite 
or indefinite. Hence 

(«) The article is omitted before words which denote objects 
of which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are 
nearly equivalent to proper names.^ Thus 7]\lo<; is almost as 
common as 6 77X^09, and jrj is not unfrequently used for rj yrj, 
in the sense of the earth (Poppo, Thuc. III. iii. 46). Hence 
also abstract nouns denoting virtues, vices, etc.,^ as aperrj, 
(Tco(j)pocrvv7), KaKia, and the names of the members of the animal 
body,^ very often dispense with the article. The same may be 
said of a number of other appellatives — as TrdXt?, aarv, ayp6<;, 
hecTTvov, and even Trartjp, fjLrjrrjp, aSeX(/)o?,^ — when the context 
leaves no room for doubt as to the particular town, field, etc., 
intended. This omission, however, is more frequent in poetry 
than in prose (Schsefer, Demosth. I. 329), and is again more 
common in Greek prose generally than in the N". T.^ 

Of anarthrous abstracts ^ in the N. T., 1 Tim. vi. 11, Eom. i. 

1 [Jelf 447. 2, Don. p. 348, Green p. 42 sq.] 

2 To which must be added the names of sciences and arts (as /V^r/x«, see 
Jacob on Lucian, Toxar. p. 98), of magistracies and offices of state (Schsef. 
Demosth. II. 112, Held, Plut. J£m. P. p. 138), of seasons of the year, of corpo- 
rations (Held I, c. p. 238), with many other names (Schoem. Isceus, p. 303, and 
on Plutarch, Cleom. p. 199). See also Kriig. p. 101 sq. As to abstract nouns, 
see Scbffif. Demosth. I. 329, Bornem. Xen. Conv. p. 52, Kriig. p. 101. 

3 Held, Plut. jEm. P. p. 248. On ^ix,;, äirrv, see Schsf. Plutarch, p. 416, 
Poppo, Thuc. III. i. Ill, Weber, Dem. p. 235 ; on dypo;, Schsef. Soph. (Ed. B. 
630 ; and on ^sTtvov, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 490, Bornem. Xen. Conv. p. 57. 

■* Schsef. Melet. p. 4, Demosth. I. 328, Eur. Hec. p. 121, Plutarch I. c, Stallb. 
Plat. Crit. p. 134. 

* Thus in Greek authors we usually find yivit hy nation, vXrihi, etc. : in the 
N. T. always tu y'lvu, A, iv. 36, xviii. 2, 24 : also «rf -rx^hi, H. xi. 12. In Greek 
authors tbe omission of the article with the nominative case of the noun is not 
uncommon, e.g. '/iXiog ih6iro, Xen. An. 1. 10. 15, Lucian, Scyth. 4 : with this 

contrast Mk. i. 32, on 'ilu ö -^Xio;' L. iv. 40, ^wvövtoj tov ri'^iov' E. iv. 26, o HXto; 

f/.-/! Wthu'iTu. iiXriVY) also and other similar words always have the article in the 
N. T. , when they are in the nominative case. 

** Harless {Epheji. p. 320) maintains that the article is not omitted witli 
abstracts unless they denote viitues, vices, etc., as properties of a subject : but 
this asseition has not been ])roved, and cannot be proved on rational piinciples. 
Compare also Krüger in Jalm's Jalirb. 1838. I. 47. [Middleton (p. 91) says that 
the article is usually omitted with an abstract noun, except in the following 
cases : (1) When the noun is used in its most abstract sense (see Ellicott on 
Phil. 9, E. iv. 14); (2) When the attribute, etc., is personified (Rom. vi. 12); 
(3) When the article is ('mj)loyed in the sc^nse of a possessive pronoun (G. v. 
13); (4) Where there is nihaence of any kind (K. ii. 8, comp. ver. 5). Of 
special omissions of the article with tluisc nouns, that with the adverbial dative 
(E. ii. 5) is the most important, ^ee further (Jreen p. 16 sq., Jelf 448, Ellicott 
on G. ii. 5, Ph. ii. 3.] 


29, and Col. iii. 8 will serve as general examples. Passing to 
particular words, we have hiKaioavvii, Mt. v. 10, A. x. 35, Horn, 
viii. 10, H. xi. 33, al.; aydiTT], G. v. G, 2 C. ii. 8 ; Tr/o-rt?, A. vi. 5, 
Horn. i. 5, iii. 28, 2 C. v. 7, 1 Tli. v. 8, al. ; KaKia, 1 C. v. 8, Tit. 
iii. 3, Ja. i. 21 ; TrXeove^ia, 1 Th. ii. 5, 2 P. ii. 3 ; dfiapTca, G. 
ii. 17, 1 P. iv. 1, Pom. iii. 9, vi. 14, al.; a(üTr]pLa,llom. x. 10, 
2 Tim. iii. 15, H. i. 14, vi. 9. To tliese should be added dyaOou 
Pom. viii. 28 (comp. Fritz, in loc), Trovrjpov 1 Th. v. 22, koXov 
re KoX KaKov H. v. 14. The article is also frequently omitted 
in the N. T. with the concretes r]K,io<^, 7>} {Earth), ^eo?, 'JTp6<;W' 
irov, v6fio<;, etc., and also with a number of other words, at all 
events when, in combination w4th prepositions, etc., they form 
certain phrases of very frequent occurrence.^ We subjoin a 
list of anarthrous concretes in the N. T., following the best 
attested readincrs. 

rjXio^ (Held, Plut. Tlmol. p. 467), e. g. Mt. xiii. 6, rjXtov dvaretXavTOS 
(Poly^n. 6. 5, Lucian, Fer. Hist. 2. 12, ^lian 4. 1) : especially when 
it is joined in the genitive to another noun, and a single notion is 
expressed by the combination, as avaroXr] rjXtov sunrise, Pev. vii. 2, 
xvi. 12 (Her. 4. 8), <^w5 y^Xiov surdight, Rev. xxii. 5 v. I. (Plat. Rep. 5. 
473 e), 8d^a rjXiov sun-glonj, 1 C. xv. 41 ; or where the sun is men- 
tioned in an enumeration ^ (in connexion with moon and stars), L. 
xxi. 25, ta-rai o-r/yaeia h rjXtu) kol (reXrjvr) kol aarpoL^^ in SUn, mOOn, and 
Stars, A. xxvii. 20 (^sch. Dial. 3. 17,' Plat. Crat. 397 d). 

y^ (Earth), 2 P. iii. 5, 10, A. xvii. 24 ; tVt 7^9, L. ii. 14, 1 C. viii. 
5, E. iii 15, (H. viii. 4) ; d7r' aKpov 7^9, Mk. xiii. 27.-^ In this signi- 
fication, however, 777 usually has the article : when used for country 
it is anarthrous, as a rule, if the name of the country follows : e. g. 
Mt. xi. 24, yrj '^oSo/JLioV A. vii. 29, iv yfj MaScdfi' vii. 36, iv yfi AlyvTTToV 
xiii. 19, iv yfi Xavadv, al. ; but inMt. xiv. 34, cts rrjv yrjv Pci/vT^craper.^ 
See below, (b). Van Hengel's observations (1 Cor. xv. p. 199) are not 
to the point. 

ovpavos (ovpavoi) is seldom anarthrous.^ In the Gospels the article 

1 Kluit II. 377, Heindorf, Plat. Gorg. p. 265. 

'^ [This is an example of irregularity noticed by Bp. Middleton (p. 99), — that 
nouns coupled together by conjunctions very Irequently reject the article 
though they would require it if they stood singly : he refers to this under the 
Dame of omission " in Enumeration," and gives ]\It. vi. 19, x. 28, 1 C. iv. 9, al., 
as examples. See also Krug. p. 100, Jelf 447. 2. b, Green p. 45.] 

^ Compare Jacobs, Philostr. Imag. p. 266, Ellendt on Arrian, Al. I. 91, Stallb. 
Plat. Gorg. p. 257. 

* [In A. vii. 36 we should probably read U Tri AlyCrru, and in Mt. xiv. 34 
It/ t'/!v yy^v us Tiwriactpir. Lünem. adds j\It. iv. 15.] 

^ Compare Jacobs in the Schulzeit. 1831. No. 119, and Schoem. Plut. Agis 
p. 135. 


is omitted only in the phrases cV ovpav(2, iv ovpavotg, i$ ovpavoiv, l^ 
ovpavov^^ and in these by no means invariably (comp. Mt. vi. 1, 9, 
xvi. 19, Mk. xii. 25, L. vi. 23) ; John also always writes Ik tov ovpa- 
vov, except in i. 32 [and vi. 58]. By Paul the article is omitted, 
as a rule, in such phrases as air' ovpavov, i$ ovpavov ; ^ and in 2 C. 
xii, 2 we find ews Tptrov ovpavov (Lucian, Philopatr. 12), see below, (h). 
Peter omits the article even with the nominative ovpavoi, 2 P. iii. 
5, 12. In the Apocalypse the article is always inserted.^ 

OdXaa-aa : e. g. A. x. 6, 32, irapa OaXacrcrav' L. xxi. 25 \Rec.\ 
rjxovarjs Oakao-crris kol craXov ; comp. Demosth. AHstocr. 450 c, Diod. 
S. 1. 32,Dio Chr. 35. 436, 37. 455, Xen. Eph. 5. 10, Arrian, Al 2. 
1, 2, 3, Held in Ad. Fhilol Monac. II. 182 sqq. In A. vii. 36 we 
even find Iv ipvOpa Oakda-a-rj (but in H. xi. 29, t^v ep. Oak.). As a rule, 
however, OdXacrcra has the article, especially when opposed to rj yrj.'^ 

/x€a-r]fxßpLa, in the phrases Kara fjLeo-rjfxßpiav southiuards, A. viii. 26, 
and Trept /xecrrjfjißpiav, xxü. 6 : compare Xen. An. 1. 7. 6, Trpos fxecrrjp.- 
ßpiav Plat. Plmdr. 259 a, eV fiea-rjpLßpta. The article is also omitted 
with the other words which denote the cardinal points, e. g. Rev. xxi. 
13, ttTTO dvaroAtoi/, aTro ßoppa, aTro vorov, diro SvcrfXMV ; similarly Trpos 
voTov Strabo 16. 719, 7rp6s ka-n-ipav Diod. S. 3. 28, Trpos dpKTov Strabo 
15. 715, 719, 16. 749, Trpos votov Plat. Grit. 112 c. (Compare Mt. 
xii. 42, ßaaikLo-a-a votov; here however voroq is a kind of proper name.) 
The same may be said of the words which denote the divisions of the 
day ; see L. xxiv. 29, A. xxviii. 23 (Kriig. p. 99). 

dyopd : ^ Mk. vii. 4, Kai (xtt' dyopas, idv fxrj ßaTTTicnavTai, ovk ka-Qiovcri.^ 
This word is often anarthrous in Greek authors (Her. 7. 223, 3. 104, 
Lys. Agor. 2, Dion. H. IV. 2117. 6, 2230. 2, Theophr. Ch. 19, Plat. 
Gorg. 447 a, Lucian, adv. Ind. 4, Eunuch. 1), especially in the phrase 
7r\r]0ov(rrj^ dyopd^, Her. 4. 181, Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 10, An. 1. 8. l,^lian 
12. 30, Diod. S. 13. 48, al. 

dypos : Mk. xv. 21, ipxop^^vov dir dypov (L. xxiii. 26), L. XV. 25, yjv 
o vios iv dypQ. Here however there is no reference to any particular 
field (aTTo TOV dypov) ; the expression is general, from the country (as 
opposed to the town, etc.). Similarly, ct? dypovMk. xvi. 12, Jud. ix. 
27, e^' dypov Gen. XXX. 16, 1 S. xi. 5, al., Plat. Theii't. 143 a, Legg. 8. 
844 c. 

öeos is frequently anarthrous,'' — most frequently by far in the 

^ [Add to these aw' olp. L, xvii. 29, xxi. 11, v'r oupecvov L. xvii. 24, tcos ovp. 
Mt. xi. 23, L. X. 15, sW uxpcu olp. Mk. xiii. 27, ot-r cixpuv olp. Mt. xxiv. 31.] 

2 'Ex 70V ovp. (Van Hcng(il, 1 Cor. xv. p. 199) is not used by Paul. [After b 
the article is as fre(|uently iuseited as omitted.] 

•* [/i*«c. wronf^ly oinits the article in vi. 14 : xxi. 1 is of course no exception.] 

* [The two words liave a common article in Kev. xiv. 7.] 

*"' Compare Hremi, J/ijs. p. 9, Sintenis, V\\\i. PericL j). 80. 

" [This and L. vii. 32 are the only f!ci"tain exam])les of uyopd anarthrous.] 

^ Compare Herrn. Arist. A^ub. 810, Borneni. Xen. Coiiv. p. 142, Jacob on 
Lucian, Toxar. p. 121. 


Epistles.^ In the following cases especially the article is omitted 
"with this word : — 

(1) When the genitive Oeov is dependent on another (anarthrous) 
noun : L. iii. 2, Eom. iii. 5, viii. 9, xv. 7, 8, 32 [i^ec], 1 C. iii. IG, 
xi. 7, 2 C. i. 12, viii. 5, E. v. 5, 1 Th. ii. 13.2 

(2) In the phrases Öco? Trarr^p, 1 C. i. 3, 2 C. i. 2, G. i. 1, Ph. i. 2, 
ii. 11, 1 P. i. 2 ; viol or rcVi/a Oeov, Mt. v. 9, Rom. viii. 14, 16, G. iii. 
26, Ph. ii. 15, 1 Jo. iii. 1, 2 (where these governing nouns also are 
without the article ^). 

(3) With prepositions : as dno ötou, Jo. iii. 2, xvi. 30, Rom. xiii. 1 
[Reel 1 C. i. 30, vi. 19 ; iv öcw, Jo. iii. 21, Rom. ii. 17 ; eV O^ov, A. 
v. 39, 2 C. V. 1, Ph. iii. 9 ; Kark Oeov, Rom. viii. 27 ; Trapa Oew, 2 Th. 
i. 6, 1 P. ii. 4. Similarly with an adjective in 1 Th. i. 9, 6€<S ^wvtl 
KOL aXrjOLvw. — In Jo. i. 1 {6eb<; rjv 6 Xoyo^), the article could not have 
been omitted if John had wished to designate the Xoyos as 6 öco?, 
because in such a connexion öco? without the article would be 
ambiguous. It is clear, however, both from the distinct antithesis 
TTpos Tov Oeov, ver. 1, 2, and from the whole description (Charaderi- 
sirung) of the Aoyos, that John wrote öeos designedly.* Similarly, 
in 1 P. iv. 19 we find Tria-To'i Kxto-n;? without the article. 

TTvevfia ayiov (rarely TTvevfxa 6eov), A. viii. 15, 17, Rom. viii. 9, 14, 
H. vi. 4, 2 P. i. 21,1 C. xii. 3 ; Trvev/uLa Ph. ii. 1 ; also iv TrvevfxaTi 
E. ii. 22, vi. 18, Col. i. 8 ; iv Tri/ev/xart dytw Jude 20. (The baptismal 
formula, cts to ovofxa tov Trarpos k. tov vlov k. tov ayiov Trvcvp-aro«?, IS 
thus quoted in Ada Barn. p. 74, eis ovofxa Trarpos k. vlov k. ayiov 

iraTrjp : H. xii. 7, vtos ov ov TratSevei iraT-qp' Jo. i. 14, /aovoyevovs 
irapa Trarpos ; ^ also in the phrase öeos rraTrjp (r]fxu)v). With fJ^-qTrip 

^ [That is, the article is much more frequently omitted in the Epistles than 
elsewhere in the N. T. : even in the Epistles the instances in which the article 
is used with this word are twice as numerous as those in which it is omitted.] 

2 [E. V. 5 is remarkable on other grounds {toZ Xp. xxt ßioZ), but has no place 
here since the governing noun has the article. In Rom. xv. 7 toZ 6. is the best 
reading : in 2 C. i. 12 9ioZ is used both with and without the article after an 
anarthrous noun. In 1 Th. i. 9, 1 P. iv. 19 (quoted below), the renderings a 
living and true God, a faithful Creator, are clearly to be preferred.] 

^ [So that this case coincides with that first mentioned. ] 

* [" Even u-4'K^Toi, which, when it is used for God, ought as an adjective to 
have the article, is anarthrous in L. i, 32, 35, 76, vi. 35." (A. Buttm. p. 89.)] 

^ [Middleton's canon is, that the article is never omitted when the Person of 
the Holy Spirit is signified, "except indeed in cases where other terms, con- 
fessedly the most definite, lose the article " — i.e., according to his theory, after 
a preposition or an anartlirous noun. Similarly Westcott (on Jo. vii. 39) : 
"When the term occurs in this form " (i.e., without the article), " it marks an 
operation, or manifestation, or gift of the Spirit, and not the personal Spirit." 
See also Vaughan's note on Rom. v. 5. In favour of Winer's view see Fritzsche 
and Meyer on Rom. viii. 4, Ellicott on G. v. 5, Alford on Mt. i. 18, G. v. 16.] 

^ [If at. John's usage be examined, it will appear very doubtful whether we 
have a right to take TctTpo; as sifiply equivalent to toZ -va.'T-po; in this passage. 
The true rendering must surely be : " as of an only son from a father." See 
Westcott in loc.'\ 


the article is omitted only in the phrase c'k KotAtas ixrjTpo? (Mt. 
xix. 12).i 

avrjp (Jiushancl): 1 Tim. ii. 12, ywaiKl SiSdo-Kav ovk iTTiTpeTTd), 
ovBe avOevTuv avhp6<i' R V. 23 ; contrast 1 C. xi. 3. L. xvi. 18, 
Tras 6 aTToXviiiV rrjv yvvat/ca avTOv . . . ttSs 6 ctTroAeXv/xeVr^v oltto 
avSpos ya/xcuv, does not necessarily come under this head, though 
yvvTy has the article in the first clause ; for the last words should be 
translated, he tvho marries a ivoman dismissed by a man. In A. i. 14, 
however, we might have expected the article before ywai^t (see De 
Wette in loc.) ; not so much in A. xxi. 5 ; but compare what is said 

TT/ooswTTov : L. V. 12, -rna-oiv iirl TT/ooscoTroi/' xvii. 16, 1 C. xiv. 25; 
comp. Ecclus. 1. 17, Tob. xii. 16, Heliod. 7. 8, piVret eavrbv l-n-l 
TrposoiTTov Achill. Tat. 3. 1, Eustath. Amor. Ismen. 7. p. 286 (He- 
liod. 1. 16) ; Kara tt/doscdttoi/, A. XXV. 16, 2 C. X. 7 (Ex. xxviii. 27, 
xxxix. 13, al.). 

Se^id, äpL(TT€pd, and similar words, in the phrases ck Se^tcov, 
Mt. xxvii. 38, xxv. 41,2 l xxiii. 33; 6^ c^wvv/xwi/, Mat. xx. 21, 
XXV. 33, Mk. X. 37 (Krug. p. 100). 

iKKXrjaca : 3 Jo. 6, ot ifxaprvprjcrdv aov rfj dydirrj ivtoinov e/CKÄT^crtas* 
1 C. xiv. 4 (eV iKKXrjma, 1 C. xiv. 19, 35 i). 

Odvaro^: Mt. xxvi. 38, Iws Oavdrov (Ecclus. xxxvii. 2, li. 6); 
Ph. ii. 8, 30, fxexpt Oavdrov (Plat. Bep. 2. 361 c, Athen. 1. 170); 
Ja. V. 20, eV Oavdrov (Job V. 20, Pr. x. 2, Plat. Gorg. 511 c) ; L. 
ii. 26, fXY) iSiiv Odvarov ; Rom. vii. 13, Karepya^ojxlvrj Odvarov ; 
Horn. i. 32, a^tot Oavdrov; 2 C. iv. 11, cis Odvarov TrapaSiSoixeOa, 
etc. : comp. Himer. 21, fxera Odvarov Dion. H. IV. 2112, 2242, 
and also Grimm on Wisdom, p. 26. 

Ovpa, in the plural, k-rn Ovpats ad fm'es, Mt. xxiv. 33, Mk. xiii. 
29 ; compare Plutarch, Themist. 29, Athen. 10. 441, Aristid. Grat. 
II. 43 : but in the singular eVt rfj Ovpa A. v. 9.^ See Sintenis, Plut. 
Tliem. p. 181. 

vofxos, of the Mosaic law : Rom. ii. 12, 23, iii. 31, iv. 13, 14, 
15, V. 13, 20, vii. 1, x. 4, xiii. 8, 1 0. ix. 20, G. ii. 21, iii. 11, 
18, 21, iv. 5, Ph. iii. 6, H. vii. 12, al. The genitive is always 
anarthrous when the governing noun has no article, as in cpya v6- 
ixov, etc. In the Gospels this word always has the article, except 
in L. ii, 23, 24 [Jiec], where however a defining genitive follows. 
As to the Apocrypha see Wahl, Clav. p. 343. Compare further 
Bornem. Ada p. 201. ^ 

J [See Mt. xix. 29 (xv. 4), Luke xii. 53, al.] 

^ [This sliould be xxv. 34 : xxv. 41 is an example of i^ ihuvvfAuv.] 

3 [The article sliould j)robably be omitted with the siii<^nihiT in Mk. xi. 4.] 

* [There is still diflerence of opinion on tlie i)roprr interpretation of vö^o? 

without the article. JJe Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Alfoid (sec; tlieir notes on 

Rom. ii. 12), Kllicott (on (I. ii. 19, al.), Jowett (on lloin. i. 2), and others agree 

with Winer. On the other side (i.e. against the view that vof^os without the 


fi^fxa, of the Kord of God: folloAvcd by Btov, Koni. x. 17 [Rcc], E. 
vi. 17, H. vi. 5 j without diov, E. v. 2G. 

viKpoL (tlie dead) is always anarthrous (excoi)t in E. v. 14) in 
the phrases cyctptir, lyiipf-aOaL, ava(Tr7]vai Ik vcKpCjv, Mt. XVll. 9, 

Mk. vi. 14, 16 [liec], ix. 9, 10, xii. 25, L. ix. 7, xvi. 31, xxiv. 46, 
Jo. ii. 22, xii. 1, 9, 17, xx. 9, xxi. 14, A. iii. 15, iv. 2, x. 41, 
xiii. 30, xxvi. 23, Rom. iv. 24, 1 C. xv. 20, al. ; so also in avd- 
aracTL^ vcKpCjv (both words without the article), A. xvii. 32, xxiv. 

21, Rom. i. 4, 1 C. XV. 12, 13, 21, 42,i al. : in Col. ii. 12 and 
1 Th. i. 10 only is a variant noted. -^ On the other hand, we almost 
always find iy^lpea-Oai, avaa-njvaL a-rro twv veKpQ)v, Mt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 
64, xxviii. 7. Elsewhere vcKpot denotes dead persons (L. vii. 22, 
1 C. XV. 15, 29, 32, also 1 P. iv. 6, al), but ol veKpoC the dead, 
as a definitely conceived whole (Jo. v. 21, 1 C. xv. 52, 2 C. i. 9, 
Col. i. 18).^ Greek authors, too, regularly omit the article with 
this word."* , 

/x€(Tov, in the phrases (earrja-ev) iv fjiia-o) Jo. viii. 3 (Schoem. Plut. 
Agis p. 126), cts /icVov Mk. xiv. 60 (but cts to ixiaov Jo. xx. 19, 26, 
L. iv. 35, vi. 8), iK fiia-ov 2 Th. ii. 7 : the omission of the article 
is still more common when a defining genitive follows, as Mk. vi. 47, 
iv fiecriü t^s 6aXdar(Tr]<i' L. viii. 7, iv /xeVo) twv aKavOioV A. XXVU. 
27, Kara /xia-ov t^s vvktos (Theophr. Ck 26). See Wahl, Clav. 
Apocr. p. 326. 

Koa-fxos is always anarthrous in the phrases d-n-b KaTaßoXrj<; Kocrfxov 
L. xi. 50, H. iv. 3, 7rp6 Karaß. Kocr. J. xvii. 24, 1 P. i. 20, d-n-o 
KTL(T€o}<s Kocr. Rom. i. 20, drr dpxQ's «oct. Mt. xxiv. 21 : in the Epistles 
we find also iv Koa-fiw, Rom. v. 13, 1 C. viii. 4, xiv. 10, Ph. ii. 
15, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 P. v. 9 [Bee.]. The nominative is but seldom 
found without the article, as in G. vi. 14 i/xol koctixos ca-ravpoorat : 
in Rom. iv. 13 the reading of the best MSS. is KX-qpovofxov elvat 

KTiVts, creation (i. e. what has been created, the world), in the 
phrase dir dp)(rj? ktio-cws, Mk. x. 6, xiii. 19, 2 P. iii. 4. But there 
is always a distinction in meaning between -rrdaa ktlo-i^ 1 P. ii. 13, 
Col. i. 15 (see Meyer), and Trao-a 17 ktiW Mk. xvi. 15, Rom. viii. 

22, Col. i. 23 [Rec.y 

article is used for the Mosaic law), see Middleton p. 303 sq., Lightfoot on G. ii. 
19, iv. 5, Ph. iii. 5, Rtv. of N. T. p. 99, Vaughan on Rom. ii. 13; and Dr. 
Gifford's full discussion in Speaker's Comm. Vol. 111. pp. 41-48.] 

^ [In ver. 42 both words have the article.] 

^ ['e» tuv v. is a variant in some other passages, but is strongly supported in 
1 Th. i. 10, and well in Col. ii. 12.] 

3 The distinction made by Van Hengel {on 1 Cor. xv. p. 135) between vixfol 
and 01 V. has no foundation either in principle or in usage. 

* ["This remark needs considerable limitation : e.g., in Thucydides the article 
is much more frequently inserted than omitted." A. Buttm. p. 89.] 

^ [See EUicott and Lightfoot on Col. i. 15.] 


wpa : as 1 Jo. ii. 18, ia-xo-rr] wpa icTTL ; especially with numerals, 
as ^v wpa TptTT} Mk. XV. 25, Jo. xix. 14, Trepl Tpir-qv lopav Mt. XX. 
3, A. X. 9, CW9 a)pa<s ivvdrrj^; Mk. XV. 33, (xtto €KTr]<5 wpas Mt. xxvii. 
45, etc.; compare Diod. S. 4. 15, Held, Plut. ^m. P. p. 229. 
(So also in a diiferent sense, wpa ;(et/xeptos ^lian 7. 13, wpa 
kovTpov Polysen. 6. 7.) The article is however omitted with other 
words when they have an ordinal numeral joined with them ; as 
TTpwr-q (fivXaKy Heliod. 1. 6, Polygen. 2. 35 (comp. EUendt, Arr. AI. I. 
152), and dirb 7rpo)T7]<s rj/jiipas Ph. i. 5 [liec.]. 

KaLp6<s : in the phrases Trpo Katpov before the time, Mt. viii. 29, 
1 C. iv. 5, Kara Kaipov Rom. V. 6 (Lucian, PMlops. 21), and ev 
Katpo» L. XX. 10 1 (Xen. Cyr. 8. 5. 5, Polyb. 2. 45, 9. 12, ah); 
also €1/ Katpio la-)(aroi 1 P. i. 5, like iv i(T)(aTaLS rj/xepaLS 2 Tim. iü. 1, 
Ja. V. 3. ' 

dpxT] : ^ especially in the common phrases (xtt' dpxn^ Mt. xix. 8, 
A. xxvi. 4, 2 7h. ii. 13, 1 Jo. i. 1, ii. 7, al. (Her. 2. 113, Xen. Cyr. 
5. 4. 12, ^lian 2. 4), e^ dpx^s Jo. vi. 64, xvi. 4 (Theophr. C/i. 28, 
Lucian, Dial Mort. 19. 2, iHerc. Cond. 1), and ev dpx^ Jo. i. 2, A. 
xi. 15 (Plat. Phcedr. 245 d, Lucian, Gall. 7). The same is of regular 
occurrence in the LXX. 

Kvpio<i — which in the Gospels is commonly used for God (the Lord 
of the 0. T.3), but which in the Epistles (especially those of Paul) 
most frequently denotes Christ, the Lord (Ph. ii. 11, comp. 1 C. 
XV. 24 sqq., Krehl, N. T. Wörterh. p. 360), in accordance with 
the progress of Christian phraseology — is, like öcds, often used 
without the article. This is the case particularly where Kvpios is 
governed by a preposition (especially in frequently recurring phrases, 
such as ej/ Kvpto)), or when it is in the genitive case (1 C. vii. 22, 
25, X. 21, xvi. 10, 2 C. iii. 18, xii. 1), or when it precedes 'Irjaov^ 
Xpi(TT6<s, as in Rom. i. 7, 1 C. i. 3, G. i. 3, E. vi. 23, Ph. ii. 11,^ 
iii. 20 : the word had already become almost a proper name. It has 
been erroneously maintained ^ that the meaning of KvpLo<: depends 
on the insertion or omission of the article : it was to Christ, the 
Lord, whom all knew as Lord, and who so often received this ap- 
pellation, that the Apostles could most easily give the name Kvptos, 
just as öcos is nowhere more frequently anarthrous than in the 
Bible.^ Still the use of the article with KvpLo<: is more common 
than its omission, even in Paul. 

ScdßoXos {the devil) usually has the article : 1 P. v. 8, 6 olvtl- 

* [The best reading is fcatpöü, without tv. ] 
2 Schiiif. Demoxth. III. 240. 

^ Compare Tliih), A]>orr. I. 169, 

* [P}i. ii. 11 lias no jdaee in this list: xvpioi is the ])redicatc.] 

* By Gabler in his Neucnt. The.ol. Journ. IV. pp. 11-24. 

•* Conipaie my Pronr. de sennu voaim Kvpios et ö Kvfios in Actis et Epist. 
Apostolor. (Erlang. 1828). 


StKos vfjLu)v 8ia^oXo9 (where this word is in apposition), and A. xiii. 
10, vlk ^LaßoXov,^ arc the only exce])tions.2 

That in tithes and superscrii)tions appellatives (especially when in 
the nominative case) dispense with the article, may be easily ex- 
plained : compare I\It. i. 1, ßlßXos yei/eo-eoj? 'Irjcrov XpLcrrov' Mk. i. 1, 
dpxy Tov cvayyiXtov' Rev. i. 1, d7roKaAi;i/^t5 Irjcrov Xptcrrov. 

2. (b) The article is often omitted with a noun that is fol- 
lowed by a genitive which indicates the singly existing object as 
beloncjinof^ to this individual.'* Thus^ Mt. xvii. 6, eireaov iirl 
irpo^coirou avrcov' comp. xxvi. 39 (Is. xlix. 23, eVt 7rp6<;co7rov 
T}]<; yy]^ ; contrast Mt. xxvi. C7, et? to 7rp6<i(ü7rov avrov' Rev. 
vii. 11), L. i. 51, eV ßpa^^ovi avrov' Rom. i. 1, et? evayyeXcov 
Oeov (where Riickert still raises needless difficulties), E. i. 20, 
eV Se^LOL avrov (H. i. 3, Mt. xx. 21), L. xix. 42, iKpvßr) ärro 
6(f)da\fjLcöv aov 1 C. ii. 16, rt? yap eyvco vovv Kvplov;^ 1 P. iii. 

' [Compare Rev. xii. 9, o xxkovf^zvos ^lä.ßoXo? xx) o «raTav«,-' and xx. 2, o; i<m 
^tdßoko; Kxi ffa.Tot.voi,i (the most probable reading). 'S.a.ra.Mx? always lias the 
article, except in Mk. iii. 23, L. xxii. 3.] 

2 "AyyiXoi docs not belong to this class of words. When it is used without 
the article, the singular always signifies an angel (one of the many), and the 
plural «.yyiXfii, angels, e.g. in 1 Tim. iii. 16, G. iii. 19, al. : on the other hand, ol 
ciyyiXoi denotes tlie angels, as an order of beings. Hence 1 C. vi. 3, sV/ kyyiXovi 
xpnovf/.sv, must be rendered, that vje shall judge angels, — not the angels, the 
whole community of angels, but all angels for whom the Kpt<n; is reserved. On 
vloöiff'tx Rom. viii. 23, see Fritz, against Riickert. That the word in apposition 
sometimes has the article, when the principal noun is anarthrous, has been 
remarked by Geel (Dio Chr. Olymp, p. 70). 

^ Thus in Jo. v. 1, UpTn ruv 'Uvlxluv could not be rendered the feast of the 
Jews (the Passover) : there is however much authority for the article, and Tisch, 
has received it into the text. [Tisch, received v in his 2d edition, and again in 
ed. 8. By most editors (and by Tisch, in ed. 7) the article is rejected : see Alf. 
in he, Ellicott, Hist. L. p. 136.] 

4 Schsef. Soph. (Ed. C. 1468, Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 219, Schoem. Ismis p. 
421, and Pint. Agis-^. 105, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 277, Herm. Luc. Conscr. 
Hist. p. 290. — In Hebrew, as is well known, the governing noun has no article 
in this construction. On this Hengstenberg {Christol. II. 565) founded anew 
discovery, which Lücke (on Jo. v. 1) has estimated as it deserves. [In his 2d 
edition Hengst, omitted the observations to which Winer here refers.] 

^ [Take Ja. i. 26, xapVutv ixvrov, as an example. Kaplia denotes an object 
which exists singly in the case of any particular individual : the genitive tavroZ 
points out this individual ; hence xapllx Iccvrov is (Winer maintains) as defi- 
nite as a proper name, and may therefore dispense with the article.] 

^ [The above rule is more questionable than any other given by Winer ; 
certainly none of his rules differ so widely as this from those which apply to 
classical Greek. In some of the examples which he quotes from the N. T. (as 
L. xix. 13, 1 Th. V. 8, al.) most will admit that the governing noun is really 
indefinite in meaning. If we analyse the remainder (to which Liinemann adds 
Mt. xvi. 18, -rvXai äiov) we shall find that they are represented by the following 
types : (1) «to -rposuTov roZ xvplov (2 Th. i. 9) ; (2) irrtv a.-rctpx.n '!■*!; 'Ap^ecU? 

(1 C. xvi. 15) ; (3) voZv xvpiov (1 C. ii. 16) ; (4) xa^S/a» lavroZ (Ja. i. 26). The 


12, 20, Ja. i. 26, Mk. viii. 3, xiii. 27, Eom. i. 20, ii. 5, L. i. 5, ii. 
4, 11, xiii. 19, xix. 13, H. xii. 2, 1 C. x. 21, xii. 27, xvi. 15, Ph. 
ii. 16, iv. 3, E. i. 4, 6, 12, iv. 30, 1 Th. v. 8, 2 Th. i. 9, 2 Th. ii. 
2,^ 2 P. ii. 6, iii. 10, Jude 6 (A. viii. 5), al. This is a very com- 
mon usage in the LXX: 1 S. i. 3, 7, iv. 6, v. 2, Ex. iii. 11, ix. 
22, xvii. 1, Cant. v. 1, viii. 2, Judith ii. 7, 14, iii. 3, 9, iv. 11, v. 
8, vi. 20, 1 Mace. ii. 50, v. 66, 3 (1) Esdr. i. 26. But in 1 C. iv. 
14, ft)9 TeKva /jlov ayaTnjTa, the article was necessarily omitted, 
since the Corinthians were not the only beloved children of Paul: 
in L. XV. 29, ovBeirore ivroXrjv aov irapijXOov, the meaning is a 
C07nmancl of thine ; and A. i. 8, Xtj-^jreade Svpaficv i7re\d6vTo<; rov 
djLov 7rv€VfiaTo<;, must be rendered. Ye shall receive poiver luhen 
the Holy Ghost shall have come doion? 

The article is also sometimes omitted when a noun is defined 
by a numeral: A. xii. 10,hLeK06vTe<; irpcorrjvcpvXafCTjv Kal heurepav 
Mk. XV. 25, "^z^ copa rptrr} kol earavpcoaav avTov' xv. 33, ew? 
6)pa<; ivvdrrji;' L. iii. 1, ev eret TrevreKaiBeKarü) Tr]<; yye/jLOvla^; 
K.T.X., 2 C. xii. 2, E. vi. 2 (Ph. i. 5 v.l.). From Greek authors 
compare Lysias 7. 10, Tpira) erec Plat. Min. 319 c, Hipp. Maj. 
286 b, Antiph. 6. 42, Andoc. 4. 17, Diog. L. 7. 135, 138, 
141 sqq. (contrast 7. 150, 151, 153). See above 1. (<x), under 

first of these seems merely an extension of a common usage beyond its ordinary 
limits. The article is naturally omitted in an adverbial phrase, such as vpo 
■vfi^iu'Trov : the peculiarity in these examples is, as A. Buttmann well remarks 
(p. 90), that the article is not inserted when a defining genitive limits the 
general phrase to a particular case. This extension was the more natural as 
the phrase is often a literal translation of a Hebrew combination which almost 
plays the part of an ordinary preposition. As to (2), where the article is omitted 
after Xar't (Madvig 10. Rem. 2), see above, jtage 142. In such examples as (3) 
we may often trace the infiuence of the principle of "correlation" (see below, 
§ 20. 4, note). In (4), however, we must recognise a peculiarity of the N. T. 
language — the occasional omission of the article with nouns definite in sense 
when they are accompanied by the genitive of a personal pronoun (see A. Buttm. 
p. 119). Madvig's rule {loc. ciL), " The governing noun is sometimes anarthrous 
when the writer wislies to express a notion that in itself is definite, in a general 
manner," will not apply to many of these examples; and it may perhaps be 
doubted whether the examples he gives (e. g. vi-o -TrXrißou? tuv viuv, Thuc. 8. 105) 
and most of those quoted by Winer from classical Greek are not best explained 
by reference to the nature and meaning of the ])articular words (as TkrJos, 
/jt-iyi^os) ]>y which the genitive is governed : comp. Kiiiger p. 100.] 

' [This passage lias no place here : in his 4th and 5th editions Winer has 
"2 Th. ii. 2, h '/if^ipef, Tov Xpitrrov." These words however are not found in 
this verse {ri ■/if/.ipa, 70V Kvpiov), nor does the article apj)ear to be ever omitted 
with '/if/.ip6e, in this and similar phrases, unless the following word {XptirTov, 
xvpiov) is also anarthrous.] 

^ Gersdorf (p. 31 G sqq.) has not ])roperly distinguished the cases. In L. 
xxiii. 46, tl{ %£>")«; (rou -raparlhf/.ai ro 'rvidf/.d fjtov, the article is both inserted 
and omitted in the same clause : similarly in other passages. 


oipa} — This usage enables us to justify Mt. xii. 24, ev tw 
BeeX^eßovX, äp'^^ovn ro)v Baifiovlcov (the reading of all the 
MSS.) : Fritzsche, who usually finds a difficulty in such 
omissions of the article, substitutes eV B. ru) ap-^. r. 3., with- 
out any support from the MSS. (Matt. p. 774).'^ 

In Greek authors such an omission of the article is by no means 
rare, especially if the noun is preceded by a pre])Osition : compare 
Xen. Cyr. 6. 1. 13, ttc/dI KaroAvcrccüs r^? o-rpaTitt?* Apol. Socr. 30, 
ev /caraXvcret rov ßiov Mem. 1. 5. 2, ctti tcX^vtyJ tov ßiov 4. 3. 16, 
Plat. Pha'dr. 237. c. Lys. Agorat. 2, ctti KaraXvcrct rov S-qfxov 
TOV vjj.€T€pov' and farther on, irarpiSa cr^ercpav avToiV KaTaXnrovTe*;- 
Lucian, Scyth. 4, ßiov airojv Dio. Chr. 38. 471, v-n-kp ycveVcw? 
avTrj<;' Strabo 15. 719, vtto priKov<i rwv oSwv (17. 808), Thuc. 2. 
38, Sia /x6ycöo9 1-^9 TToAeo)?- 7. 72. In German also the article 
is commonly omitted in such cases, if a preposition precedes : e.g. 
iiber Auflösung des Eäthsels, Stärke des Körpers, etc. In Greek 
authors, however, the genitive also frequently loses the article, or 
the genitive with the article precedes the governing noun, as twv 
Xioptojv xoAcTTo-n;? : see Xen. Cyr. 8. 6. 16, 3Iem. 1. 4. 12, Thuc. 1.1, 
6. 34, 8. 68.3 

3. (c) When the conjunction /ca/ joins together two or more 
nouns "^ (denoting different O'bjects ^) which agree in case and 
number but differ in gender, the article is, as a rule, repeated 
with each substantive. This rule holds good not merely when 
the nouns denote persons (as in A. xiii. 50, ra^; aeßofieva^ 
^vvalna^ . . . Kai rov<; Trpcorov^ Trj(; TroXea)?* L. xiv. 26, E. vi. 2, 
A. xxvi. 30), but also when they signify objects without life : as 
Col. iv. 1, TO SiKawv KOL rrjv laoTrjTa tol^ SovXoc<; Trapi'^eaöe' 
Iiom. viii. 2, airo rov vo/iov t^9 d/jiapTia<; kol tov Oavdrov Mt. 
xxii. 4, L. X. 21, Eom. xvi. 17, Ph. iv. 7, 1 C. ii. 4, E. ii. 1, Ptev. 

» [Kriig. p. 100, Middleton p. 100, Green p. 42, Ellicott on E. vi. 2, Shilleto, 
Dem. F. L. p. 38. The article is sometimes omitted with superlative expres- 
sions, as in 1 P. i. 5 (Kriig. p. 92, Middleton p. 101).] 

^ [Meyer renders, " by lieelzebul, as ruler over the devils."] 

3 Compare Kriig. Dion. H. p. 168, Jacobs, Athen, p. 18 sq., Poppo, Thuc. 
III. i. 130. 

* Benseler (Isocr. Areop. p. 290 sqq.) has collected much from Isocrates on 
the repetition and non-repetition of the article with nouns (substantives, adjec- 
tives, participles, — also infinitives) which are thus connected by conjunctions, 
but does not succeed in presenting the subject very clearly. Compare also 
Tholuck, Literar. Anzeig. 1837. No. 5. [Middleton pp. 56-70, Green pp. 
67-75, A. Buttmann p. 97 sqq., Webster, Gr. p. 36, Jelf 459. 9.] 

^ For if the connected nouns are, for instance, only predicates of one and the 
same person, as in Col. iii. 17 [Bee], tu ßiui xa< Tarpl' 2 P. i. 11, roZ xvpUv 
hfioiv Koe.) ffuTÜpos 'I. Xp., E. vi. 21, Mk. vi. 3, A. iii. 14, the article cannot be 
repeated. [So even with aXX«, 2 Th. ii. 12 (A. Buttm. p. 99) ; and with Si 
L. xii. 48.] 


i. 2, xiv, 7, H. iii. 6. Compare Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 9, avv rw 6copaKL 
K. rfj kott'iBl' Plut. Virt. Mid. p. 210, 8m rov avSpa k. rrjv ape- 
Tr)v' Dion. H. IV. 2245. 4, eVt toO tokov koI t?}? \oyeLa<^' 2117. 
17, Ta<; ■fvxa'; Kal ra o-rrXa' 2089. 14, Diod. S. 1. 50, 51, 86, 
Philostr. Her, 3. 2, Diog. L. 3. 18, 5. 51, Herod. 2. 10. 15, 
Strabo 3. 163, 15. 712, Plut. Aud. Poet. 9. init., Themist. 8, 
Isoer. Areop. p. 334, Plat. Charm, p. 160 b, Sext. Emp. adv. 
Math. 2. 58. 

In these combinations the repetition of the article appeared 
grammatically necessary, but at the same time the nouns joined 
for the most part express notions which must be apprehended 
separately ; see below, no. 4. When however the notions are not 
to be sharply distinguished, or when there is joined to the first 
noun an adjective which belongs to the second also, the article 
is not repeated (although the nouns differ in gender), the single 
article belonging to all the nouns in common: Col. ii. 22, ra 
ivTaX/iara Kal hihaaKaXla^ tmv avOpceircov' L. xiv. 23, e^ekde 
66? T«? o8ov<; Kal (ppaj/iov^;' i. 6, ii/ vracrat? rat? evToXaL<; Kal 
SiKatM/maat rod Kvpiov Mk. xii. 3 3, Eev. v. 1 2. Similar examples 
are furnished in much greater numbers by Greek authors — 
both poets (Herm. Eur. Hec. p. 76) and prose- writers — with- 
out anxious regard to the meaning of the words ; e.g. Plat. 
Rep. 9. 586 d, T^ eirtaryfirj Kal XÖjm' Legg. 6. 784, o aw^povMv 
Kal aoxppovovaa' 6. 510 c, Apol. 18 a, Crat. 405 d, Aristot. 
Anal. Post. 1.26, Thuc. 1. 54, Lycurg. 30, Lucian, Parasit. 13, 
Herod. 8. 6. 11, ^1. Aiiim. 5. 26.^ When the nouns are 
separated by 77, the article is invariably repeated: Mt. xv. 5, 
Tc3 irarpi rj rfj fjLTjTpi' Mk. iv. 21, hiro rov fioBtov rj virb ttjv 
kXlvtjv' Rev. xiii. 17. 

When the connected nouns do not agree in number, the repetition 
of the article was natural, and in point of grammar is almost indis- 
pensable : as Col. ii. 13, iv rol^ TrapaTrTWfxaac kol rrj aKpoßvcTTLa' 
E. ii. 3, Ttt OeX-QfxaTa T7J<: aapKO'S kol tcüv ScavoiCjv' 1 Tim. V. 23, Tit. 
ii. 12, A. XV. 4, 20,2 xxviii. 17, Mt. v. 17, Rev. ii. 19. Com- 
pare Plat. Crito 47 c, ryv S6$av kol tov<; iiraivovr Dion. H. IV. 
2238. 1, VTTO T^s TTafiOivov KÜX Twv TTcpi avTTjv yvvaLKCjv ', on the 
other hand, Xen. An. 2. 1. 7, iTnaTrjfioiv twv Trepl ras ra^ct? T€ 
Koi oTrXofxa^^iav Agath. 14. 12, ras Swa/xct? koX ttoAc/xoi/. — 1 C. iv. 9, 

^ Compare also Kriig. Dion. p. 140, and Xcni. Anab. p. 92, Bornem. Cijr. 
p. 668. 

^ [The article before "zv.ktov .should probably be omitted.] 


Oiarpov iycv^Orj/jiiv tw Kotr/xu) kol ttyy€Aots Koi avOpu}7roL<;, (IOCS not 
corae iinuer this head : tlic two anarthrous nouns specialise to* 
Koa-fxiü, the world, as well angels as men. 

4. (d) If the nouns connected by Kat agree in gender, the 
article is not repeated, 

(1) If the nouns are regarded only as parts of one whole, or 
members of one community :^ Mk. xv. 1, av/ißovXLov Troi-qaavTe^ 
01 äp'^tepel^ fiera t(ov Trpeaßvrepcov koI ypa/jb/jLariüyv (where tlie 
elders and scribes, as distinguished from the chief priests, are 
indicated as a single class of individuals), L. xiv. 3, 21, Col. ii. 8, 
19,2 j; -I 20, V. 5, Ph. i. 7, ii. 17, A. xxiii. 7, 2 P. i. 10 ; Xen. 
An. 2. 2. 5, 3. 1. 29, Plat. FJiil. 28 e, Dion. H. IV. 2235. 5, 
Plut. Aud. Poet. 1. 171., 12. in. 

(2) When a genitive or some other attributive belonging to 
both nouns is inserted between the first noun and its article : 
1 Th. ii. 12, eh rrjv eavrov ßaa-iXelav kol Bo^av iii. 7, iirl 
iTaarj rfj OXl'^ei koi avdyKr) rjfiMV Rom. i. 20, r^ re aLSLO<^ avrov 
Svva/jLt<; K. OeioTT]^' Ph. i. 25, E. iii. 5. Compare Dion. H. IV. 
2246. 9, Ta9 avTMv yvvatKa^; Koi 6vyaT€pa<;' 2089. 4, Diod. S. 
1. 86, rrjv irpoeiprjixev'qv iTTifieXecav Kai TLjxrjv' 2. 18, ^1. Anim. 
7. 29, Aristot. Eth. Nicom. 4. 1. 9, 7. 7. l.'"^ So also when the 
common genitive follows the second noun, as in Ph. i. 20, 
Kara rrjv diroKapaSoKLav Kol eXiriha fiov i. 7, eV rfj diroXoyla 
K. ßeßatcoaet tov evayyeXlov 1 P. ii. 25 : on Ph. i. 19 see 
Meyer.* Compare Benseler p. 293 sq. 

Under (1) it should be noted, that in a series of nouns which 
belong to one category the first only has the article : as A. xxi. 25 
(jivXdaaecrOaL avrov? .... t6^ at/xa Kat ttvlktov kol iropveLav E. 
iii. 18, Tt TO TrXaros k. p.rjKO'i k. ßdOo<; k. vi//^os* Jo. V. 3, 1 C. V. 10 : 

1 Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 253, Held, Plut. Timol. p. 455. 

^ [The nouns here differ in gender, though the same form of the article suits 

^ In this case we find the article omitted even when the nouns differ in 
gender: Lysias, in Andoc. 17, ■npl to. xXXorpix lipa xui lopTus yxrißu. Compare 
above, 3. 

* [In the edition referred to (the 1st) Meyer regards vfzuv as connected with 
both ^iina-iu; and i'7nx,opy)y'iot,? : in ed. 5 Winer had taken the same view. In 
Meyer's later editions (1859, 1865) the absence of the article is differently 
explained, viz. as arising from the manner in which Wix,op' is conceived, — 
" supply, not the supply." Winer gives another explanation below — see 5 {b), 
and with this Ellicott agrees. Alford and A. Buttmann join Wi^cp. with vfjt,öjv.'\ 

^ [This article should be omitted, but the passage still illustrates the rule. 
Jo. V. 3, however, is of a different kind.] 


compare Her, 4. 71, Oa-n-TOva-L Kca tov olvo^oov k. fxayupov K. LTTTroKOfxav 

K. SLr]Kovov K. ayyeXiTjcfiopov k.t.X., Plat. Eiithypli. p. 7 c. For examples 
of proper names thus connected, see A. i. 13, xv. 23. 

5. On the other hand, it is usual to repeat the article 
{a) Where each of the nouns is to be regarded as having an 
independent existence :^ 1 C. iii. 8, o (pvrevcov koI 6 ttotl^cou €v 
elcTLV A. xxvi. 30, dvea-rr) o ßa(7i\€v<; Kai 6 rjye/jLcov k.t.X., Mk. 
ii. 16 [^Rec.^, ol ypa/jLiuLaTeL<; koX ol ^aptaaioc (the two distinct 
classes of Christ's adversaries united together for one object), 
Jo. xix. 6, ol dpy^Lepeh koL ol vTrrjperai (the chief priests and the 
attendants belonging to them, — with their attendants), ii. 14, xi. 
47, Mk. ii. 18,vl21,xi. 9, 18, 27, xii. 13,xiii. 17, xiv. 43, L. i. 
58,viii. 24, xi. 39,42, xii. 11, xv. 6, 9,^ xx. 20, xxi. 23,xxiii. 4, 
A. iv. 23, vi. 4, 13, xiii. 43, xv. 6, xxiii. 14, xxv. 15, Eom. vi. 19, 
E. iii. 10, 12 [Bee.], 2 C. xiii. 2, Ph. iv. 6, 1 Tim. iv. 6, Ja. iii. 
11, 1 Jo. ii. 22, 24, iv. 6, v. 6, Eev. vi. 15, vii. 12, xiii. 10, 16, 
xxii. 1. Compare Xen. Athen. 1. 4, Lys. Agorat. 2, adv. Nieom. 
3, Isocr. Areo]). p. 352, Perrmtt. 736, Diod. S. 1. 30 {Zlcl ttjv 
avvhplav Kal ttjv (TTrdviv T'fj<; dirdar]^ Tpo(f)r]<;), 3. 48, 5. 29, 
17. 52, Plut. Virt. Mid. p. 214 (eirep.y^re ryv yvvatKa Kal ttjv 
Ovyarepa), JEl. Anim. 7. 29, Diog. L. 5. 52,^ Weber, Demosth. 
p. 395. 

This rule holds particularly when the two nouns are connected 
by T€ . . . Kal, or Kal . . . Kal, and in this way are still more 
prominently exhibited as independent :^ see L. xxiii. 12, A. v. 24, 
xvii. 10, 14, xviii. 5, Ph. iii. 10 \_Rec.\ H. ix. 2, and compare ^1. 
Anim. 7. 29, Theophr. Char. 25 (16), Thuc. 5. 72, Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 
41, Mem. 1.1.4, Aristot. Pol. 3. 5, Isocr. Demon, pp. 1, 1 2, Permut. 
738, Diod. S. 1. 69, 4. 46, Lucian, Fug. 4, Arrian, Ind. 34. 5, al. 
Even in this case, however, the article is sometimes omitted in 
(good MSS. of) Greek authors, where there is no proper anti- 

1 Schfef. Dem. V. 501, Weber, Dem. p. 268. 

2 [Recent editors read tat <ptXcc; xai yiiTova,; ; contrast ver. 6.] 

•^ We find the article both inserted and omitted before nouns of the same 
^(•nder in Arrian, l^pict. 1. 18. 0, r/jv o-^iv rhv diotxpiTuchv tuv Xivkuv xa) 
/LciXccvuv .... Tuv üyußäJv Kai tuv kockuiv. Tiie case is somewhat dill'eient in 

A. vi. 9, 7ivis TU¥ ix. TTii ffwocyuyYii rrii Xiy/)f/,iv*i5 Aißiprivuv xcc) Kvptjv. xcct 

'a>£^«v5/). , xai ruv ocTo Ki/.ixiecs xcci 'Affla.;: here two parties are intended, each 
jiossessing a common synagogue ; Kvpnv. and 'aae^. combined with Aißipr. con- 
stitute the first, the Jews of Cilicia and Asia the second. [See Meyer, who 
supposes that ßve synagogues were referred to. See also Alford in loc. for a 
good explanation of the second t&Jv.] 
* Scha;f. Dcmodh. III. 255, IV. 68. 


thesis : ^ compare Xen. Mem. 1. 1. Id, rd re Xeyo/ieva kuI irpar- 
TOfieva (wliere there immediately follows, as an antithesis to 
these two participles, koX tcl cnyfj ßovXevofieva), Thuc. 5. 37, 
Plat. Rep. G. 510 c, Phmd. 78 b, Lion. H. IV. 2242. 2, Diod. S. 

1. 50, 2. 30, Arrian, Ind. 5. 1, Dio Chr. 7. 119, Marc. Ant. 5. 1 ; 
see also Matth. 268. Hem. 1. 

A disjunctive particle obviously requires the repetition of the 
article: L. xi. 51, fiera^v rod dvo-taarijpLov Kal rov olkov Mt. 
xxiii. 35, 1 C. xiv. 7, ttw? yvoyadrjaerac to avXov/juevov i) to 
Ki6api^6fi6vov ; Mt. x. 14, xvii. 25, xxiii. 17, 19, Mk. xiii. 32, 
L. xiii. 15, xxii. 27, Jo. iii. 19, A. xxviii. 17, Eom. iv. 0, 1 C. 
xiv. 5. Compare Isocr. Permut. p. 746. 

(6) When the first noun is followed by a genitive, and the 
second is thus annexed to a completed group of words ; as in 
1 C. i. 28,Ta dyevrj rov Koa/xov Kal ra i^ovOevrjfjbiva' v. 10. If 
each of the nouns has its ow^n genitive, they are already suffi- 
ciently disjoined, and therefore the repetition of the article is not 
necessary : Ph. i. 19, Sta r?)? v/jlwv Serjaeco^; Kal iirt'^opijyia'; rov 
7TvevfiaT0<; k.t.X? 

Rem. 1. We find various readings in very many passages : e. g. Mt. 
xxvii. 3, Mk. viii. 31, x. 33, xi. 15, L. xxii. 4, A. xvi. 19, Rom. iv. 

2, 11, 19, 1 C. xi. 27, 1 Th. i. 8. 

It may not unfrequently be a matter of indifference what particular 

1 See Poppo, Thuc. I. 196 sq., III. i. 395, Geel on Dio Chr. Ol. p. 295. 
^ [It will be useful to compare with the last two sections A. Buttmann's care- 
ful classification of examples (pp. 97-101). 

1. When the nouns (which agree in gender and number) have no attributives, 
the article is 

(a) not repeated, when the nouns may be regarded as parts of one whole, as 
expressing ideas whicli are kindred or necessarily connected, or which supple- 
ment one another ; 

{h) repeated, when they represent contrasted or independent notions. 

There are, however, many exceptions to (a), as the writer without any risk of 
ambiguity may name the parts for themselves, as parts: comp. Mt. xx. 18 with 
xxi. 15, A. xiii. 43 with xv. 22. 

2. (a) If any one of the nouns has an attributive which belongs to all, the 
article is not repeated. 

(6) if the attributive belongs to this noun only, the article is repeated ; 

(r) if each noun has its own attributive, the case is substantially the same as 
(1), and the same rules apply. 

As examples of 2. (a) he gives Rom. i. 20, Ph. i. 20 : as exceptions, E, iii. 
10, 1 C. xi. 27, A. XXV. 15, Rev. xiii. 10. For 2. (6) see Mk. vi. 21, 1 C. v. 
10, 1 Tim. iv. 6 : Col. ii. 8 is an exception. For 2. (c) he quotes 1 Th. iii. 11, 
—also 2 Th. i. 12, Tit. ii. 13, 2 C. i. 3. 

In applying these niles we must always bear in mind that regard for jier- 
spicuity will often influence the writer's choice ; and also that the repetition of 
the article gives emphasis and weight (Green p. 74, Ellicott on E. iii. 10, Tit. 
iii. 4).] 



view shall be taken of the mutual relation of the connected nouns, so 
that the choice is left entirely to the writer's preference : in 1 Th. i. 

7, for instance, we read iv rfj MaKcSov. koL iv rfj 'A;^ata ; but in ver. 

8, Kttt 'Axaict, Hence there are passages in which the reader would 
not feel the want of the article if it were omitted (e. g. 1 Tim. v. 5 i), 
and others in which it might perhaps have been inserted, as E. ii. 20 
(see Meyer in loc). See, in general, Engelhardt on Plat. Menex. p. 
253, Poppo, Time. III. i. 395. 

In Tit. ii. 13, iirKfidveta -rrß S6^r)<i tov /xeydXov 6€ov kol (T(j)Tr]po<; rj/xiov 
'Irja-ov XpLCTTov, considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine 
lead me to believe that o-oirrjpo^; is not a second predicate, co-ordinate 
with Oeov, — Christ being first called 6 /xeya? Oeos, and then orwrrjp. 
The article is omitted before cro)Trjpo<s, because this word is defined by 
the genitive r]/xu)v, and because the apposition 2^'^'^cedes the proper 
name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.^ Similarly 
in 2 P. i. 1, where there is not even a pronoun with crwrjjpo?. So 
also in Jude 4 we might suppose two different subjects to be referred 
to, for Kv/3to9, being defined by rjixuiv^ does not need the article : Kvp. 
r)/xwv 'I770-. X/3. is equivalent to 'Irjor. Xp. os ecrrt KvpLO<; rjfxiov. (In 
2 Th. i. 1 2 we have simply an instance of Kvptos for 6 Kt^ptos.^) 

' As the words stand, vrpoi/zivu tous ^iY,<n(Tt ku) ra.7? -Trpoiiv^ou?, prayer is sub- 
divided into its two kinds : if the article were not repeated, prayer and inter- 
cession would be taken together as forming one whole. 

^ In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of 
gi'ammar, ffurvpo; v/u-üv may be regarded as a second predicate, jointly depend- 
ing on the article tov ; but the dogmatic conviction derived from Paul's writings 
that this apostle cannot have called Christ the great God induced me to show 
that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause xeti cut. . . . 
XpiffTov by itself, as referring to a second subject. As the anonymous writer in 
Tholuck's Lit. Anz. (1837, No. 5) has not proved that my explanation of this 
])assage would require a second article befoj'e trurripo? (the parallels adduced 
are moreover dissimilar, see Fritz. Rom.. II. 268), and still less that to call Christ 

fjt.'iycc; 6ioi would harmonise with Paul's view of the relation of Christ to God, 

1 adhere to the opinion expres.sed above. Any unprejudiced mind will at once 
perceive that such examples as are adduced in § 19. 2 prove that the article was 
not required with ffurnpos, and the question whether ffojrnp is elsewhere applied 
to God is nothing to the j^urpose. It is sufficient that ffuTYip ri/u.uv, our Saviour^ 
is a perfectly dettnite predicate, — as truly so as '* his face .•" -rpösu-rov indeed is 
applied to many more individuals than trurnp is! The words on p. 38, "If 
ffuT-np Yi/u-Mv were used in the N. T. of one definite individual only, etc.," contain 
an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed nothing decisive towards 
the settlement of the dispute. [This passage is very carefully examined by 
EUicott and Alford in loc. ; and tliough these writers come to different con- 
clusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the former rendering the words, "of 
our great (»od and Saviour Jesus Christ "), tliey are entirely agreed as to the 
admissibility of both renderings in point of <j7'ammar. See also Green, Qr. p. 
75, Scholefield, Hints, Middletonp. 393 sq.] 

' ["Granvillf! Sharp's first lule," so often referred to in discussions on these 
texts, is as follows : " When the copulative tcai connects two nouns of the same 
case (viz. noun.s — either substantive, or adjective, or participles — of personal 
description respecting office, dignity, ailinity, or connexion, and attributes, pro- 
perties or qualities good or ill), if the aiticlc ö, or any of its cases, precedes the 
first of the said nouns or purtici[)les, and is not repeated before the second noun 



Rem. 2. We find a singular omission of the article in L. x. 29, rt? 
IcTTL fxov TrXr/criov ; and ver. 36, Tt9 TovTUiv . . . 7r\rj(TLov Sok€l croL 
yiyovivai. tov i/xTT. ; here 6 irX-qa-iov might have been expected (see 
Markland, Eur. Suppl. 110), since irX-qcriov is also an adverb. Dö- 
derlein {Sipion. I. 59) has adduced a similar example, ^schyl. Prom. 
938, e/xot 8' Ikaa-crov Zrjvo^ rj fxrjSkv yaeAct, where fxrjhiv appears to stand 
for TOV fxrjSiv. In the above passages, however, it would be admissible 
to take vXyja-Lov as an adverb, who (is) stands near me ? See Bornem. 
in loc. 

Section XX. 


1. When attributives — consisting of adjectives, genitive cases, 
or prepositional clauses ^ — are joined to a noun which has the 
article, they are placed either — 

(a) Between the article and the noun ; as o ayaOo^ avOpwiro^; 
Mt. xii. 35, TO i/jLov ovo/ia Mt. xviii. 20, to ayiov irvevfia, r) tov 
Oeov fiaKpodvfMia 1 P. iii. 20, 97 avo) kXyjo-l^; Ph. iii. 14, 77 ev <p6ßo) 
dyvr) avaaTpo(j)7] 1 P. iii. 2, 77 Trap' i/jLov SiadiJKT] Rom. xi. 27,^ 
KaT eKXoyrjv TrpoOecn^ Rom. ix. 11, to Katvov avTOv /xinj/xecov 
Mt. xxvii. 60 ; compare 2 P. ii. 7, H. v. 14, vi. 7: — or 

(b) After the noun, — with or without a second article ac- 
cordin<T to the nature of the attributive. 

(a) If the attributive consists of an adjective ^ or a preposi- 
tional clause, the article is, as a rule, repeated. 

or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or 
described by the first noun or participle ; i. e. it denotes a further description of 
the first-named person." Heinarks on the uses of the definitive article in the 
Greek text of the N. T., p. 3 (2d ed. 1802). He adduces the following examples: 
A. XX. 28 (with the reading xup. ko.) 610Z), E. v. 5, 2 Th. i. 12, 1 Tim. v. 21 Rec, 
2 Tim. iv. 1 {Rec, but Kvp. instead of roZ x.), Tit. ii. 13, 2 P. i. 1, Jude. 4 Rec. 
** The rule is sound in principle, but, in the case of proper names or quasi-proper 
names, cannot safely be pressed :" Ellicott in Aids to Faith, p. 462. See also 
Ellicott in locc, Middleton p. 60 sqq.. Green, Gr. p. 73 sqq.] 

' Genitives of personal pronouns are joined to the noun without a second 
article, as -rai; /xov : they blend, so to speak, with the substantive. 

^ Of course this only applies to adjectives which are used as attributives of 
substantives. In L. xxiii. 45, iff^^ir^n to rov taou fji,i(Tov, the adjec- 
tive fts/rav belongs to the verb, . . . was rent in the middle : ra /u.i<rov KaretTir. 
would have a different meaning. The other adjectives of this kind, defining 


(/3) If however the attributive is the genitive case of a noun, 
the repetition of the article is usually restricted to the following 
cases : — 

{aa) When the writer desires to give the adjunct more em- 
phasis or prominence (as in 1 C. i. 18, 6 X0709 tov crravpov" 
Tit. ii. 10, TTjv BiBaaKoXLav rrjv rod <r(OTrjpo<; rjfjicbv' see Schsef. 
Melet pp. 8, 72 sq., Matth. 278. Eem. 1) ; ^ and especially when 
a relation of kindred or affinity is appended for the sake of 
distinction, as in Jo. xix. 25, Mapla rj rod KkwTra? A. xiii. 22, 
Aaßlh 6 TOV 'leaaai' Mt. iv. 21, x. 2, Mk. iii. 17. 

{ßß) When the noun already has its own (personal) genitive, 
as in Mt. xxvi. 28, to alfid fiov to Trj<; KaLvrj^ Biad7]Kr]<; ; in this 
passage, however, the article is not firmly established.^ 

(c) Such attributives — especially if adjectives — are some- 
times, though rarely, placed before the noun and its article : as 
A. xxvi. 24, fieyaXj) tj} (jxov^ €(pr} (see above, p. 134), Mt. iv. 
23, TrepiTJyev iv 6\rj tj) TaXtXala. 

In case (a), more than one attributive maybe inserted between 
the article and the noun, as 6 äyLo<; Kai äfi(Dfxo<; avOpcoiro^: as a 
rule, the article is not repeated. When however the attributives 

place or number — 'iffx,K.Toi, oXos, iu,ovo;, Ix'iyoi — appear in the sentence without an 
article whenever they are not true epithets ; and are placed either 

(a) After their noun, as in Mt. xvi. 26, l«v rov xixTf^ov oXov xtplriffyi, if he 
.'should gain the whole world (the world wholly) ; Mt. x. 30, al rplx^s t. xKpaXris 
•TratTai rifiiSfjtvfji'iva.i £/V/y (ix. 35, Jo. V. 22, Rev. vi. 12, Plat. Epin. 983 a), Mt. xii. 

4, OVK l^ov 71V (pxyiTv . . . £< f^'/i ToTg UpiZffiv //.ovois '. — or 

(b) Before it, as in Mt. iv. 23, H. ix. 7, /^ovog o apx^piv? Jo. vi. 22,— See 
Gersdorf p. 371 sqq., though his collection of examples is for the most part 
uncritical. Comp. Jacob on Lucian, Al. p. 51, Kriig. p. 123, Rost p. 425 (Don. 
I>. 462, Jelf 459). 

' Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 55, Madvig 9. This construction however gradually 
lost its force, and with many writers, — Demosthenes, Isocrates, Xenophon 
Kphes., in particular, — it is almost a rule to insert the article before such a 
genitive, even when no emphasis is intended. The orators may have had 
rea.sons for doing this in spoken discourses. Compare Siebelis, Paiisan. I, 17. 

^ The proper moaning of this phrase is : among the women whose name is 
Mary the (particular Mary) of Clo])as, — the wife of Clopas. — The article is not 
introduced if the writer, in appending the genitive, does not aim at any precise 
distinction : Jj. vi. 16, 'lou'^ecv 'Ja.x.ußov' A. i. 13, 'laKußog ' AX(pa.lov just as in 
Her. 1. 59, KvKovpyoi '' \pi(iToXcc'i1i(,}' and Dion. H. Comp. 1, Aiovutrlov ' AXi^dvlpou 
(though in both places Schiefer would inscirt the artiide), or in Aristot. PoUt. 
2. 6, 'WTöoe/ Kvpu(pcövToi- and Time. 1. 24, 'l'a.>.tos 'EpuTOKXiilou (Poppo, Thuc. 
I. 195), Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 3: comp. Herrn. Vig. p. 701. In L. xxiv. 10, 
however, we must citrtainly read Uup'ta. h 'luKuß'jv, with the best M8S. See 
further Fiitz. Mark, p. 696 sq. Such a collo(;ation of words as T>ij 'Vopunui 
^loßrs (Pausan. 2. 22. 6) is not found in the N. T. 

•' [It is omitted by recent editors.] 


consist of genitives or prepositional adjuncts, the article may be 
repeated ; as in L. i. 70, Bca arofxaTO'^ tmv ayiiov tcjv dir alo)vo<^ 
7rpo(j)7]Tcüv'^ 1 P. iv. 14, TO Ti]<i Bo^T)^ Kol TO ToO deov TTvev^a, 
that is, tltc Siurit of glory and (therefore) the Spirit of God, — 
tlie Spirit of glory, Avho is no other than the Spirit of God 
Himself. Of a similar kind are Thuc. 1. 126, eV rfj rod Alch; 
rfj fieylcTTr, eoprfj- Plat. Rej:). 8. 565 d, irepl to eV ^ApKahla 
TO Tov Alo^ lepop ; except that in these examples kul is wanting 
(Jelf 459. 5). — In case (b) also there is nothing to prevent an 
accumulation of adjuncts : see H. xi. 12, rj äfifio^ rj irapa to 
^etXo? T?}? OaXdaarj^, rj dvapL6fJLTjT0<;' Kev. ii. 12, ryv poficpaLav 
Tr-jv SlaTo/xov ri-jv o^elav (Krug. p. 1 19) : when however the 
attributives are not connected by Kai (§19. 4), the article must 
be repeated.^ 

The first of the cases mentioned under (p), — that of adjectives 
and prepositional clauses placed after the noun which they 
qualify, — requires further explanation and illustration by ex- 

a. Adjectives and possessive pronouns (with the article) fol- 
lowing their noun : — 

(1) For the simple case see Jo. x. 11, o Trotfirjv 6 KoKor A. 
xii. 10, eVl rrjv ttvXtjv ttjv cnhrjpäv Jo. vii. 6, o KaLp6<; o e'/x-o?" 
i. 9, iv. 11, XV. 1, L. ii. 17, iii. 22, viii. 8, A. xix. 16, E. vi. 13, 
Col. i. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 7 [Ecc], 1 C. vii. 14, xii. 2, 31, 1 Jo. i. 3, 
Ja. 1. 9, iii. 7. In some of these instances the writer appends 
the adjective for the sake of adding some closer specification 
(comp, especially Ja. iii. 7) ; in others, that he may give to the 
adjective more emphatic prominence (Bornemann, Luc. p. xxxvi, 
Madvig 9 % 

(2) We also find this arrangement chosen when the noun is 
already qualified by a genitive or some other attributive : Mt. 
iii. 17, vi6<; fiov 6 äyaTrrjrof;' 2 C. vi. 7, Bid tcjv oirXwv ttj^ 
BtKaLoavv7)<; rcov Be^ccov Kai dpcarepMV Jo. vi. 13, twv irevre 
dproDv TOiv KpcOlvcov' Mt. vi. 6, L. vii. 47, Tit. ii. 11 \_Eec.'], H. 
xiii. 20, al. The N. T. writers usually avoid such a combination 

^ [The second article is omitted in the best texts. (Jelf 459. 5).] 

2 A rare reiteration of the article, in full accordance with the above rules, is 
found in Rev. xxi. 9, vX^-v tJ; \k tuv Wt» a.yy'i\ut tuv l^'o^Tuv Txs i-rrk (pix>.K$ 
(täj) yifjicii(Ta.i {rimy) tTTet ^Xriyuiv ruy iff^dcruv. 

3 [Jelf 458. 2, Green p. 33.] 


as Tov fiovoy. Oeov vlov, as more intricate; compare Jo. iii. IG 
[Rec], 1 Jo. iv. 9. 

In 1 Jo. V. 20 Eec, rj ^wrj alcovto^;, the adjective is appended 
without a second article ; but the better MSS. omit the article 
before ^(otj. No exception could however be taken to the common 
reading in itself, for the later writers begin to omit the article in 
such cases (Bernh. p. 323)/ though the examples adduced from 
Long. Past. 1. 16, Heliod. 7. 5, Diod. S. 5. 40, are not exactly 
parallel with the passage of which we are speaking. Besides, 
^(OT} al(ovLo<; had already come to be regarded as a single notion : 
comp. Jo. iv. 36. In L. xii. 12, Griesbach and Schott read to 
yap irvevfia ayiov ; but Knapp and all recent editors, to yap 
ayiov irvevfia, without noting any variant. In 1 C. x. 3 [ßec.^, 
TO ßpodfjLa TTvevfjuaTLfccv, and G. i. 4,^ 6 aicov 7rov7}p6<;, we must 
look upon the adjective and substantive as coalescing to express 
one main idea, and avTo and iveaT. are (as often) inserted as 
epithets between the article and the noun : compare 1 P. i. 18.^ 
See also H. ix. 1, to ayiov Koa\xiKÖv^ With Jo. v. 36, kyi^ 
6^0) Tr)v fiapTvplav fiei^cj tov ^Icodvvov, — in which fiel^w is the 
predicate, " the testimony which I have is greater than, etc." 
(Eost p. 425, Don. p. 528 sq.), — may be compared Isocr. Philipp. 
c. 56, TO croj/jLa Ovtjtop airavTe^; e'^ojxev. See further Schcef. 
Plat. V. 30. 

b. The following are examples of attributive prepositional 

^ The earlier writers did the same in certain cases, according to good MSS. : 
compare Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 319, and Krüger in Jahns JaJirh. 1838. I. 61. 

^ [In 1 C. X. 3, TvivfjbartKov sliould probably precede ßpu/jt-a,: in G. i. 4, Lachm., 
Alford, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort, read ix. tov aluvos tov Ivta-TÖÖTo; Tovtjpov.] 

^ [1 C. X. 3 Bee, G. i. 4 Hec, 1 P. i. 18, fall directly under a rule thus given 
by Krüger (p. 121) : "When an attributive is inserted between the article and the 
noun, a second attributive sometimes follows the noun without a second article ;" 
similarly Madvig 10. liem. 6, A. Buttm. p. 91, Jelf 459. 3, Green p. 59 (who adds 
E. ii. 11, Rom. ix. 6, A. xiii. 32): see also liost p. 426, Kiddell, Plat. Apol. p. 
128. Donaldson (p. 369 sqq.) seems to regard such examples as instances of 
aj)position : see also Ellicott on G. i, 4.] 

"* [This is a different case, since there is only one attributive. As the 
ordinary rulr; is so carefully observed l)y the N. T. writers, — St. John, for in- 
stance, uses ^&/>) a-leuvios (in this order and without article) 20 times, but when- 
ever tiie aiticle comes in we find either h xl. Z,. (Jo. xvii. 3), or h Z,. h ul. (1 Jo. 
i. 2, ii. 25), see A. Ikittm. p. 91 — it is far ])r('feral)]e to consider ko<t fjt.iy.ov as an 
a[)position, or even as a substantive (Middl. ]). 414, Green p. 53), than to render, 
"^Ae worldly aaiiciuary." The word, however, is best taken as predicative 
(comp. Delitzsch in loc). In Jo. xii. 9 Tisch, and Westcott and Hort read 
« o;^Xof 'ToXvs : this is a simpler case, since the two words easily coalesce to 
express one idea.] 


clauses with the article: 1 Th. i. S,r) Tr/o-xi? vficov i) irpo^; rov 6e6v 
2 C. viii. 4, tt}? ScaK0VLa<; t?;<? et? tou? dyiov^;' Ja. i. 1, rat? ^uXat? 
rat? eV t^ BtaaTropa' A. xv. 23, rot? Aco-ra rr^i/ 'Avrco'^^ecav .... 
aSeX-^ot?, TOt? e^ idvwv xxiv. 5, Tracri, rol'^ IovhaLOL<^ roi? «-ara 
T^i/ OLKov/jL€vr]v' lü. 16, iv. 2, viii. 1, xi. 22 [AV.-.], xxvi. 4, 12, 
22/ xxvii. 5, Mk. iv. 31, xiii. 25, Jo. i. 40, L. xx. 35, Kora. iv. 11, 
vii. 5, 10, viii. 39, x. 5, xiv. 19, xv. 26, 31, xvi. 1, 1 C. ii. 11 sq., 
iv. 17, xvi. 1, 2 C. ii. 6, vii. 12, ix. 1, xi. 3, Ph. i. 11, iii. 9, 1 Th. 
ii. 1, iv. 10, 1 Tim. i. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 1, E. i. 15, Rev. xiv. 17, xvi. 
12, xix. 14, XX. 13. (There are variants in A. xx. 21, L. v. 7, 
Jo. xix. 38, Rom. x. 1.) Every page of Greek prose furnishes 
illustrations of this usage: examples from Arrian are given by 
Ellendt (Arr. AL I. 62). This mode of attaching such attribu- 
tives to the substantive (by which, strictly speaking, that which 
defines the noun is brought in afterwards as a supplement) is, 
from its greater simplicity, much more common in the N. T. than 
the insertion of the prepositional clause between the article and 
the noun. — That the LXX regularly insert the article in this 
case, a very slight examination will show. 

c. Participles, as attributives, do not here stand on exactly the 
same footing as adjectives, inasmuch as they have not entirely 
laid aside the notion of time. They receive the article only 
where reference is made to some relation which is already 
known, or which is especially worthy of remark (is qui, quippö 
qui), and where consequently the participial notion is to be 
brought into greater prominence:^ 1 P. v. 10, o 6e6<; .... 6 
Ka\e(Ta<; r]fia<; eh rrjv alcoviov avTOv So^av .... oXiyov iraOov- 
Ta9, avTc<; Karaprlo-ai, God .... He who called us unto His 
eterncd glory, after lue sJwidd have suffered a v.^hile, etc.; E. i. 12, 
eh TO eivai r]iiä<i eh eiTaLvov .... to i;? TTporfkinKOTaf; iv tc5 
Xp., we, those who {quippe qui) have hoped (as those who have 
hoped); compare ver. 19, H. iv. 3, vi. 18, Rom. viii. 4, 1 C. viii. 
10, Jo. i. 12, 1 Jo. V. 13, 1 Th. i. 10, iv. 5, 1 P. i. 3, iii. 5, Ja. iii. 
6, A. xxi. 38. Compare Dion. H. III. 1922, Polyb. 3. 45. 2, 3. 
48. 6, Lucian Dial. M. 11. 1, al. 

^ [In A. xxvi. 4 the article is not certain ; in ver. 12 we must omit t«/»« ; 
ver. 4 is quoted below as an example of the omission of the article. In ver, 22 
the main noun is anarthrous.] 

2 [Compare Ellicott on E. i. 12, 2 Tim. i. 10, Don. Gr. p. 532, New Crat. p. 
521, Jelf 451, 695 srjq. ; and see below, § 45. 2. J 


On the other hand, the participle is without the article in A. 
xxiii. 2 7, rov avBpa tovtov avWrjcpOevra viro rcov 'lovSalcov, hunc 
vir urn com^orchensum, who has been apprehended, after he had 
been apprehended ; 2 C. xi. 9, vo-repTj/jud jmov irpo'^aveTrXrjpcoa-av 
ol aheX^ol iXOovre^ airb M.aKehovLa<i, the hrethren wlien they had 
come; A. iii. 26, dvaaT^aa<; 6 ^eo? top TralBa avrov direaTeiXev 
avTov k.tX., God, raising iijp ^ his Son, sent him, etc. (contrast 
H. xiii. 20) ; Eom. ii. 27, /cpcvel rj gk <f>va6co<; dKpoßvaria rov 
vofiov reXoixra ae k.t.X., if it fiäßl, or hy fulfillmg : compare 
L. xvi. 14, Jo. iv. 6, 39, 45, 1 C. i. 7, xiv. 7, 2 C. iii. 2, H. x. 2, 
xii. 23, 1 P. i. 12 (Fritz. Matt. p. 432, Stallb. Plat. AiJol p. 14). 
So also in A. xxi. 8, et9 tov oIkov ^cXlitttov tov evayyeXLarov, 
ovTo^ eK TOiv eirrd, the correct translation is qui erat, — as one of 
the seven; rov ovto^, the reading of several [cursive] MSS., 
gives a false emphasis to the clause : Eom. xvi. 1 is a similar 
instance. Compare Demosth. Con. 728 c, Ev^iOeov tovtovI ovO' 
rjfjLiu avyyevT)' Diod. S. 17. 38, o Trat? mv e^ eroiV 3. 23, tov 
TLTTTovTa KupTTov ovTa KObXiv Pliilostr. ^j9o//. 7. 16, eV Tri Vr)(J(p 
dvvBpw ovarj irpcTepov Thuc. 4. 3, 8. 90, Demosth. Polycl. 710 b, 
Isocr. Trap. 870, Lucian, Hermot. 81, Dial. M. 10. 9, Alciphr. 
3. 18, Strabo 3. 164, Long. 2. 2, Philostr. Her. 3. 4, Sophist. 1. 
23. 1. 

In E. vi. 1 6, Ttt ßiXr) TO. TrcTTvpoi/xcva, the second rd is of doubtful 
authority : if we omit it (with Lachm.) the words must be rendered, 
the darts, when or though they are fiery (quench Satan's darts burning). 
In 2 Jo. 7 ipxofxevov belongs to the predicate. In G. iii. 1, 'Ir/o-ovj 
Xp. 7rpo€ypd<f)r} iv v/juv ecrravpw/xcvo?, we must translate, Jesus Christ 
as crucified, compare 1 C. i. 23 ; it is otherwise in Mt. xxviii. 5. 

The passage first quoted, 1 P. v. 10, 6 öeos, 6 KaAeVas rjixa<; .... 
oXiyov 7ra06vTa<;' is an instructive illustration of the use of the participle 
with and without the article. Sometimes the insertion or omission of 
the article with the participle depends entirely on the aspect under 
which the writer chooses to regard the subject. Thus in Rom. viii. 1, 
Tot9 iv Xp. 'lyjaov, fxr) Kara (rdpKa TrepiTrarovcrti/ k.t.X. (with a comma 
after 'Irjaov), would be, to those who are in Christ, since they walk not 
accmyJing to the flesh: rots fxr] k. a-. Trep. would give greater prominence 
to the api^osition, — to those ivho are in Christ, as men tvho etc., to 
them, who etc. : compare Matth. 271. Rem. But the whole clause pr) 
.... TTViv/jia is certainly not genuine. 

' [Tliis P'nglisli exj)iession is ainlji<^uou.s. The word used by Winer does 
not sif^nify " riiising/j-om </te c/^'«t/ ; " he tiikes «vafTTjjVa; in tlie s;ime sense as 
u)ta.tjTr,<ni, ver. 22.] 


When a participle witli tlie article is placed in apposition to a 
noun, or used as a vocative (as if in apposition to o-v), it sometimes 
expresses derision or indignation, or gives prominence to some pro- 
perty which is pointed at^vith derision or indignation. Commentators 
on Greek authors have often attributed a derisive force to the article 
itself,^ but this force lies only in the thovf/Jä and the special pro- 
minence with which it is expressed ; in speaking, it would also be 
indicated by the voice. From the N. T. may be adduced Rom. ii. 1, 
rot yap avra TrpafTcrct? 6 KpivuiV' Mt. XXvii. 40, 6 KaTaXvuiV Tov 
raov . . . KaTdß-qSi airo tov (rravpov. See Ilemi. Eur. Alc. 708, 
Matth. 27G. 

2. To the general rule explained above [p. 167. b.] there are 
certain undoubted, indeed almost established exceptions. In 
these a prepositional clause which with the noun it qualifies 
expresses in the main 07ie idea is to be connected with this noun 
by the voice alone, the grannnatical sign of union (the article) 
being absent : ^ Col. i. 8, Br)\cüaa<; r]^lv ttjv vfiwv aydirrjv iv 
TTpev/iari., your love in the Spirit (see Huther) ; 1 C. x. 18, 
ßXeirere tov 'IcrparjX Kara adpKa (the opposite of ^Icrp. Kara 
TTvevfia); 2 C. vii. 7, tov vfiwv ^rjkov virep ifiov' E. ii. 11. 
These exceptions are found chiefly — 

(a) In the oft-recurring apostolic (Pauline) phrases iv XpiGTu> 
'Irjaov, iv Kvpico, Kara adpKa : as Col. i. 4 [Eec], uKovaavre^ ttju 
TTiaTLV vuwv iv Xp. 'I. Kal Tr)v dyaTrrjv ttjv eh TrdvTa<i tov^ 
ajLOv^;' E. i. 15, dKovaa<; ttjv KaO^ v/jlu^ irlaTiv iv tg5 Kvpup I. 
Kal TTJV dydTTijv T'qv eU irdvTa^ tov<; dyiov^i' Eom. ix. 3, rcov 
avyyevojv fiov Kara adpKa' 1 Th. iv. 16, ol veKpol iv XpLaTa> 
dvaartjaovTaL irpajTov, the dead in Christ (1 C. xv. 18), the anti- 
thesis to which is T^/xet? ol fwi^re? (ver. 17), for these are f(W^'Te9 
iv XpLGTo) (of the resurrection of those who are not Christians 
Paul has here no occasion to speak) ; Ph. iii. 14, E. iv. 1 (here 
iv Kvplw would have been placed after uyita? if Paul had intended 
that it should be joined with irapaKaXo), and moreover it is 
heafjLLo^ iv Kvplw which gives the true emphasis to the exhorta- 
tion which follows), ii. 21, vi. 21. Not unlike these examples 

1 " Articulus irrisioni inservit," Yalcken. Eur. Phcen. 1637 : Markland, Eur. 
Suppl 110, Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 12, Apol. p. 70. 

^ [Several of the instances quoted in this section are examples of the rule 
given on p. 166, note 3, the prepositional clause being connected with a noun 
-which already has an attributive (prefixed or subjoined) : comp. Thuc. 1. 18, 
/tiST« T»iv rü)i rvpoivyuv Ka'ru?.v(rtv Ik Tr.i 'EXXa^aj. See Krüg. p. 121, A. Buttni. 
p. 91.] 


are 1 Tli. i. 1, 2 Th. i. 1, rfj iK/ckrja. GeaaaXov. iv 6e^ irarpl 
Kot Kvp[(p fc.T.X.: in 1 Tim. vi. 17, also, the words Tot<; 7rXovcrloL<; 
iv Ta> vvv alojvc must be connected together.^ Compare further 
A. xxvi. 4, Horn, xvl 3, 8, 10, E. ii. 15, Ph. i. 1. 

(h) When the verb from which the substantive is derived is 
construed with a particular preposition, or when the appended 
clause forms the natural complement to the meaning of the sub- 
stantive ' (Held, Plut. Timol. p. 419, Krug. p. 121) : E. iii. 4, 
Svi/aaOe vorjaai rrjv avvealv /jlov iv T<p /j,vaT7)piq) (Jos. i. 7, 2 Chr. 
xxxiv. 12, 1 Esdr. i. 31), compare Dan. i. 4, avvievre^ iv irdarj 
crocpta ; Rom. vi. 4, (rwerdcjiTj/xev avTM hta tov ßaiTTiafxaTO^ et? 
Tov Odvarov (ver. 3, ißaTrrtadrjfjLev eh tov Bdvarov avTov) ; 
Ph. i. 26, Bid T^9 e/Lt^9 irapovo-la^ irdXiv irpo^ vfjLä<;'^ 2 C. ix. 13, 
aTrXoTTjTL tt}? KoivcovLa<; et? avrov^ /cal et? 7rdvTa<;' Col. i. 12 
(Job XXX. 19), comp. Bahr in loc. ; E. iii. 13, iv rat? OXt^lreaL 
/jlov virep v/jlcov (compare ver. 1); 2 C. i. 6 [?], Col. i. 24. So also 
Polyb. 3. 48. 11, t?;?^ tcov o^Xcov dXXorpLorrjra tt/oo? 'Pwfjbaiov^' 
Diod. S. 17. 10, T?}? 'AXe^dvSpov irapouala^ iirl Ta? Srjßa<;' 
Her. 5. 108, 77 dyyeXla irepl rcov ^apSlcov Thuc. 5. 20, 97 h^ßoXr} 
e? TTjv Attlkijv' 2, 52, 97 (TvyKO/juSr} ck tmv dypcöv e'9 to darv' 
1. 18, Plutarch, Coriol. 24, 77 twv TraTpiKiwv hv^ixeveca irpo^ tov 
SrjfjLov Fo7n2y. 58, al TrapaKXrjaec^i virep Kalaapo^. In the LXX 
compare Ex. xvi. 7, tov fyoyyvo-fjuov v/jlo)v eVl tg3 Ocm, which 
Thiersch considered pcene vitiosum ! 

The case (ct) is probably to be referred to the spoken language, 
which, possessing the living medium of the voice, would hardly 
insert the article in every case; whilst the written language, in the 
interests of precision, could less easily dispense with it. Yet even 
for this case some parallel examples might be quoted from Greek 
writers : compare Polyb. 5. 64. 6, Bid Tr]v tov 7raTpb<; 86^av ifc 

1 In the 0. T. quotation which occurs in Rom. i. 17 and G. iii. 11, Paul 
probably connected Ik -riffTiui with o IUkios. In the first passage he adduces 
the words of the prophet to establish the proposition ^iKaioa-uv»] hoZ i» Titmuis 
X.9-.X., not h Z,uri ix. ODtociofft/vn; : compare Rom. x. 6, ^ i» -yrlffTiui ^iKoctotrvvri. In 
H. X. 38, however, ix, ^/Vt£w; c(^rtainly belongs to Z,r,(nTa.i ; see Rleek. [In 
favour of connecting i« t. with 'C^mnui in Rom, i. 17, (Jul. iii. 11 (Ewald, De 
Wette, al.) see the notes of Wieseler and Ellicott on the latter passage ; see also 
Delitzsch on Ildhakkuk p. 50 scj^.] 

^ ["Liegt in der Tendenz des Subst."— See Ellicott on E. i. 15.] 
^ Hence in Rom, v, 2 the absence of the article before lU rhv x^P^^ Tavrnv 
would be no obstacle to our connecting this clause with Tn orla-rn (which words, 
however, are omitted by Lachm. and Tisch.) ; but there are other dilliculties. 
[Tisch, retains the words in his last edition.] 


T?}? aO\)]a€(üf;- Sext. Emp. Jf//pof. 3. 20, ^r]jovfi€v irepl rov tottov 
7r/909 iiKplßeiav (for rov iTpo<; uKp., as is clear from what pre- 
cedes), Time. 6. 55, wv o re /Sco/xo? arj^ialvec kol rj arrjXTj rrepl 
T7i9 T(üv Tvpavvcov ttSt/cta? (where Bekker from conjecture inserts 
V hefore Trepl) : compare Krlig. I)io7i. p. 153, Toppo, Thuc. III. 
i. 234. 

We must however be cautious in dealing with particular 
passages : ^ several which might at first seem to come under 
this head, a closer examination will show to be of a different 
kind; comp. Ellendt, Arr. Al. 1. 315. 

(a) Sometimes there may have been a slight transposition of 
the words. Thus in 1 Tim. i. 2, TifioOew yvrjaLO) reKvw iv TTLarec, 
the words iv iriareL, if construed in sense with jv7]aiw, will give 
the meaning ^c?i2(mc in faith: compare Xen. An. 4. 3. 23, Kara 
Ta9 'Trpo^7)Kov(7as: 6'^6a<; iirl top irora/jLOv, that is, Kara rd? eiru 
T. TT. iTpo^7]K. 6x0ci<;. But it is preferable on several grounds to 
consider iv irlo-rei here as an adjunct to the compound idea 
genuine son. In 1 P. i. 2, however, the qualifying clauses Kara 
TTpoyvcoatv Oeov .... 6t9 viraKOTjv Kal pavriafiov k.t.X. are 
probably to be joined v/ith iKXeKToU in ver. 1. 

(b) In other instances the prepositional clause really qualifies 
the verb : Col. i. 6, ä(f> ^? rj/iepa^; rjKovaare Kal iireyvcore rrjv 
XO'piv rov Oeov iv dXrjOela (see Bahr and Meyer in loc) ; Eom. 
iii. 25, ov irpoeBero 6 ^eo? IXaaTrjpiov Bia Triareco^; iv tc5 avrov 
aifxaru (see Fritz, and De Wette in loc) ; Eom. viii. 2, o vofio^ 
rov TTvevfiarof; rrj<; fw?}? eV Xpcarü) 'J. rjXevOepwae fie airo rov 
vöfiov T?}9 dfjLapTiaf; Kal rov davdrov, where it is evident from the 
antithesis vofi. rod 6av. (to which vofio^ t?)? fwrj? accurately 
corresponds), and also from ver. 3, that ev Xp. must be con- 
nected with r)Xev6. (so Koppe) ; Ph. i. 14, tov? irXelova^ twv 
d^eXcpoJv iv Kvpiw TreTTOi^oTa? rot? 8eo-yu.ot9 /J-ov (compare a 

1 Harless (on E. i. 15) and Meyer (on Eom. iii. 25, al.) have expressed their 
concurrence with the view maintained above. Fritzsche, too, who in his Letter 
to Tholuck (p. 35) had dechired that such a combination as lnu. Tr.s -TrlffTiu? iv 
T^ avTov alfiurt would be a solecism, has since expressed his change of view 
{Rom. I. 195, 365) : in his note on Eom. vi. 4 also he maintains that the only 
admissible construction of the words is that which joins tts tov ^avccrcv with 
J/a Tou ßccTTicrfjcuTos, — a Combination which he had previously (Letter, p.^ 32) 
pronounced grammatically incorrect. [Fritzsche himself does not connect Iv tm 
avT. ctlfjt.. with -xlaTiui iu Eom. iii. 25 ; he acknowledges, however, that such a 
connexion is grammatically admissible. ] 


similar construction in G. v. 10, ireiroida eU vfia<; ev Kvplo)' 
and in 2 Th. iii. 4), as it is only when joined to ireTroiOoTa^ that 
ev Kvpio) has real significance ; Ja. iii. 13, Bec^drco e'/c ttJ? Kd\rj<; 
dvaaTpo(j>T]<i rd epya avrov ev Trpavrrjrt. ao(^'ia<;, where the added 
clause ev irpavT. aocj). is an explanatory adjunct to e'/c tt}? Ka\. 
dvaarpocpr]^. Compare also Eom. v. 8, 1 C. ii. 7, ix. 18, Ph. iii. 
9,1 iv. 19, 21, Col. i. 9, E. ii. 7, iii. 12, 1 Th. ii. 16, Phil. 20, H. 
xiii. 20, Jo. XV. 11 (see Lücke in loc), 1 Jo. iv. 17, Jude 21. 
So also A. xxii. 18 [^Rec], ov TrapaSe^ovrai aov rrjv /maprvpLav 
irepl ifjbov, may be rendered, thy testimony they will not receive 
concerning me, i.e. in reference to me they will not receive any 
testimony from thee : rrfv fxapr. ryv irepl ifjuov would be, the 
testimony which thoio wilt hear or hast home concerning me. In 
E. V. 26, ev py/juaTL does not belong to tgS Xovrpoj rod vSaros:: 
the verse should probably be divided thus, — ha avrrjv djcdo-r), 
KaOapLcra^ tüj X. r. £;S., ev pr/fiari. The Ka6apt^etv precedes 
the dyid^ecv, and denotes something negative, as dytd^ecv some- 
thing positive : see Eückert and Meyer in loc? In H. x. 10 
it was not necessary to write hid t7]<; 'Trpo<;(^opd^ tov acajMaro^ 
. . . . T?79 e(f)dira^: the last word relates just as well to 
r]yLa(7ixevoi, see Bleek in loc. On E. ii. 15, Col. ii. 14, see 
§ 31. Eem. 1. 

In E. vi. 5, for rots Kvptots Kara adpKa, Lachm. has received tois 
Kara adpKa KvpioL<;, on the authority of good MSS. 

3. (a) An appellative in apposition to a proper name usually 
has the article: A. xxv. 13, ^Aypi'mra<; 6 ßacnXev^- L. ix. 19, 
'Iwdvvrjv TOV ßaTTTiarrjv' A. xii. 1, xiii. 8, xxiii. 24, xxvi. 9, 2 C. 
xi. 32, Mt. xxvii. 2, al. In all these instances the appellative 
denotes a rank, office, or the like, which is already well known ; 
and it is only by means of the apposition that the proper name, 
which may be common to many persons, becomes definite. 
'' Agrippa the king," is properly, " that Agrippa, outof all those 
who bear the name Agrippa, who is king:" compare § 18. 6. 

(6) But the apposition has no article in A. x. 32, ^//x&)^' 
ßvpaev^, Simon a tanner (a certain Simon, who was a tanner) ; 
L. ii. 36, "Avva irpo(f>rjTL<;, Anna, a prophetess ; viii. 3, 'Icodvva, 

^ [So Meyer : on the other side sec Alfbrd and Ellicott in loc] 
^ [EllicoU, Alford, and Eudie join iv pi^/ucan and Kx^xptirxs.] 


<yvvi] Xov^a, eTrirpoirov 'HpcoBov A. xx. 4, Pai-o? Aepßalo^;, 
Gains of Dcrhe (not the well-known inhabitant of Derbe), x. 22. 
In all these instances the writer simply annexes an appositional 
predicate, without any special design to distinguish the subject 
from others of the same name. 

In L. iii. 1 also, eV eret TrevreKaiEeKaTfo t/'}? 7)y€/jLovia<; Tl- 
ßepLOv KaLaapo<;, the proper translation is, of Tihcrias as em- 
pcror} A. vii. 10, evavrlov ^apaw ßaciXeca^; Alyvirrov is not, 
befo7X Pharaoh, the well-known king, or the then king of 
Egyft ; but before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, i. e. before Pha- 
raoh, who was king of Egypt. Compare Plutarch, Parallel. 1 5, 
Bpevvo^ FaXarojv ßacn\ev<;' c. 30, 'AT€7ro/Jiapo<; TakXoov ßaat- 
Xeuv" etc., etc. 

The general rule must also determine the use of the article 
with other words in apposition, and it is strange that any one 
should assert absolutely that a word in apposition never has the 
article. A Greek would use no article in expressing your father, 
an unlearned man ; whilst in your father the general, the article 
would be quite in place. This applies to Jo. viii. 44, gram- 
matically considered.^ 

In general, we may consider that the article is more fre- 
quently present than absent before the word in apposition (Piost 
p. 430, Jelf 450). In accordance with the principles explained 
in § 19, the article may at times be omitted, even when the pre- 
dicate is characteristic, distinguishing the individual from others: 
Rom. i. 7, airo Oeov nrarpo^ v/jlcjv 1 Tim. i. 1, kut iTrirayrjv 
Oeov (TcoT^po<; i^/icbv 1 P. v. 8, o dprlSiKo^ v/jlmv Stdßo\o<;. 
So also when the appellative predicate precedes the proper 
name, as Kvpco^ 'Ir]aov<; Xpiaro^; (2 C. i. 2, G. i. 3, Ph. iii. 20, 
al.) ; though in this case the article is commonly inserted, as 
1 C. xi. 23, KvpLO<; 'Ir]aov<;' 2 Tim. i. 10, rov awrifpo^ yficop 
Xpiarov' Tit. iii. 4, 1 Th. iii. 11, Phil. 5, al, 

4. An epithet joined to an anarthrous noun (appellative), is 
itself anarthrous, as a rule: Mt. vii. 11, Bofiara dyaOd' Jo. 

^ Gersdorf (p. 167) is wrong. [Gersdorf appears to regard the presence or 
absence of the article before the word in apposition as a mere characteristic of 
style, not affecting the sense in any degree.] 

^ [It had been maintained (by Hilgenfeld) that toZ liaßoXou here is not in 
apposition to -raTpos, but is deptndent upon it.] 


ix. 1, elhev apOpcoirov Tv(f)\ov i/c yeverrj^;' 1 Tiin. iv. 3, a o öeo? 
€KTLcrev et? fJbeToXrjy^iv fMera ev-^aptcTrla^;' i. 5, aydirrj etc Ka- 
6apä<; KapSLa<^' Tit. i. 6, reKva e-)(0)v iriard, firj iv Karriyopla 
dacoTui'^rj äwiroraKra' Rom. xiv. 17, hiKaioavvri ical elprjvri koI 
X'^P^ ^^ TTveufiart dycM. Compare Plat. Eejy. 2. 378 d/'Hpa? 
Be B€o-fjbov<i VTTO vleo<i koI ^H(f)aL(TTov piy\reL<; vtto ira- 
rpo^, fieWovro'^ rfj fjLrjrpl rvTrrofievrj d/jLVPecv, koX deofjua- 
^ta?, ocra^ "OfJbrjpo^ ireiroiriKev, ov irapaBeKTeov et? t7;i; ttoXcv 
Theophr. Ch. 29, eVrt 8e rj KaKoXoyta dycov r^? "^^X^}? ^^'*> ^^ 
^et/DOi» iv XoyoL^' ^lian, Anim. 11. 15, eoLKa Xe^ecv i\e(j)av- 
T09 opyrjv eh ydfxov dSiKovfjuevou} Compare Stallb. Plat. Bep. 
I 91, 110, 152, Krug. p. 118. 

'Not unfrequently however such attributives have the ar- 
ticle though the noun is anarthrous ; and that not merely 
when the noun belongs to the class noticed in § 19. 1 (e. g. 
1 P. i. 21), but also in other cases, — though never without 
sufficient reason. Thus 1 P. i. 7, to Bokl/jllov vijuoyv Tri<i iri- 
<TTea)<; TroXvTo/jLorepov -^ p v a i o v, r o v d tt oWv jjue v o v, 
must be resolved into, is 7rwTe precious than gold, vjhich is 
perishable; A. xxvi. 18, iriaTei rfj et? e/^e, through faith, 
namely, ^/i«^ in me; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv dydirr) rfj iv Xpio-Tcp 'Irjaov' 
Tit. iii. 5,ovK i^ epycov roiv iv BiKatocrvvrj' Eom. ii. 14, eOvr) 
TO. fiT} vofiov e^ovra, gentiles, those that have not the laio, 
see Fritz, in loc. (contrast 1 Th. iv. 5) ; Rom. ix. 30, G. iii. 21 
(comp. Liban. Oratt. p. 201 b), H. vi. 7, Ph. iii. 9. In such 
cases the noun (strictly speaking) is first conceived indefinitely,^ 
and is then more closely defined by the attributive, whose 
import receives special prominence in this construction.^ See 
also A. X. 41, xix. 11, 17, xxvi. 22, Ph. i. 11, iii. 6, 1 Tim. 

' So xXecttjjj iv vvKTt might signify a nocturnal thief; but in 1 Th. v. 2 after 
ui kX. Iv V. we must supply 'ipx.ira.i from what follows, that the day of the Lord, 
as a thief {cAnnaÜv) in the night, so cometh. Even adverbs are joined (i. e. pre- 
fixed) without the article to such anarthrous nouns ; as fAeHxa. p^ufzuv, Xen. Hell. 
5. 4. 14, a H.ivere vnrder. See Kriig. \n Jahns Jalirh. 1838, I. 57. 

* Tills appears most ]»lainly in such sentences as Mk. xv. 41, aXXai voXXou al 
O'vva.vußua'cci uvtm us I'.poo'okv/u.oe,. 

•*["The anarthrous position of the noun may be ren;arded as employed to 
give a prominence to the peculiar meaning of the word without the interference 
of any other idea, while the words to which the article is prefixed limit by their 
fuller and rnon; y)r(!cise descri])tion the general notion of the anarthrous noun, 
and thereby introduce the determinate! idea intended." (Green p. 34.) See also 
Ellicott on G. iii. 21, 1 Tim. iii. 13. J 


i. 4, iii. 13, iv. 8, 2 Tim. i. 14, ii. 10, II. ix. 2, 2 Jo. 7, 
Jude 4, Ja. i. 25, iv. 14 [Jicc], 1 P. v. 1. Compare Her. 
2. 114, €9 jyv T7)v ai)v' Xen. i^/r7?i. 2. 1. 32, avOpuiiroLfi roh 
dyadoL<; {men, that is to say, tJie good), Hicro 3. 8, viro 
fyvvacKcjv rcov kavrSiV Man. 1. 7. 5, 4. 5. 11, Dion. H. IV. 
2219. 4, evvoia rfj Trpo? avrop' 2221. 5, oTrXca/jLo^i 6 toZ«? 
r7]\LKovTot<; TTpeircop' ^lian, Anim. 3. 23, ouSe eVl Kepheu ro) 
fieyiara)- 7. 27, Her. 5. 18, 6. 104, Plat. Ee^h 8. 545 a, Legg. 
8. 849 b, Demosth. Necvr. 517 b, Theophr. Oh. 15, Schneid. 
Isoer. Paneg. c. 24, Arr. Ind. 34. 1, Xen. Ephes. 2. 5, 4. 3, 
Heliod. 7. 2, 8. 5, Strabo 7. 302, Lucian, Asin. 25, 44, %^A. 
1, Philostr. A200L 7. 30 ^ (Madvig 9). 

In Ph. ii. 9 Rec. we read, ovofxa to virkp ttov ovo/xa, a name, 
which is above every name: good MSS. however have to ovo/xa, the 
name (which he now possesses), which etc., — the (well known) dig- 
nity, which etc. 2 

^ Comiiare Held, Plut. Timol. p. 409, Hermann, on Luc. Conscr. Hist, p. 106, 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IL 241, Schoem. Plut. Cleom. p. 226. 

^ [On most of the points discussed in this and the preceding sections the best 
writers on the N. T. are in the main agreed. The chief differences of opinion 
relate to the extent to which the following principles are to be carried. 

(1) The laws of ** correlation " (Middleton pp. 36, 48 sq.) :— 

(«) "As a general rule, if a noun in the genitive is dependent on another 
noun, and if the main noun has the article, the genitive has it like- 
wise " (Don. p. 351) ; see Bernhardy p. 321, Ellicott on Col. ii. 22, 
Alford on Jo. iii. 10. 

(/s) If the governed noun is anarthrous, the governing noun is not unfre- 
quently anarthrous also, and vice versa ; see Bernhardy /. c. , Ellicott on 
E. iv. 12, V. 8, and comp. Green p. 46. "Winer mentions some particular 
examples which illustrate both parts of this rule (for a, see p. 1 46, Rem . 
1 ; for ß, his observations on ^o/x.o? and 6io;, — compare also \). 157) ; but 
lays down no general rule of this kind. 

(2) The omission of the article after a preposition, Middleton cai-ries this 
principle much farther than Winer (see above pp. 157, 149), and indeed to 
a perilous extent, maintaining that the absence of the article *' with nouns 
governed by prepositions " atibrds no presumption that the nouns are used 
indefinitely (p. 99) : see Alford on H. i. 1, 1 C. xiv. 19, Ellicott on 1 Tim, iii. 
7, Krug. p. 100. 

(3) The omission of the article with nouns which are made definite by a 
dependent genitive : on this see p. ]55, note 6. See further Ellicott, Aids to 
Faith, p. 461 sq.] 



Section XXI. 


1. In the use of the pronouns the language of the N. T. 
agrees in most respects with the older Greek prose, and with 
Greek usage in general. The only peculiarities are 

(1) The more frequent use of personal and demonstrative 
pronouns, for the sake of greater clearness (or emphasis), — see 
§22 sq.: 

(2) The comparative neglect of several forms, which belonged 
rather to the luxuries of the language, or of which an Oriental 
would not feel the need, as the correlatives, 09x^9, oirocro^, 
oirolo^, TTrjXiKo^ [? 6'7Tr]\tKo<;], in the indirect construction ; in- 
deed these forms are used in the N. T. even less frequently than 
by the later Greeks. On the other hand, those modes of 
expression by which the Greeks consolidated their sentences 
f attraction) had become very familiar to the N. T. writers (§ 24). 
The assertion that auT09 is used in the N. T. for the unemphatic 
he, is incorrect ; and the Hebraistic separation of ovSel^; into 
ov . . . . 7ra9 is almost confined to sententious propositions or 

2. The gender of pronouns, — personal, demonstrative, and 
relative, — is not unfrequently different from that of the noun to 
which they refer, the meaning of the noun being considered 
rather than its grammatical gender (constructio ad sensum). 
This construction is most common when an animate object is 
denoted by a neuter substantive or a feminine abstract, in 
which case the masculine or feminine pronoun is used, ac- 
cording to the sex of the object: Mt. xxviii. 19, fxaOrjTevaaje 
Trdvra ra eOvrj, ßairTi^ovTe<; avrov<;, Eev. xix. 15 (compare 
Ex. xxiii. 27, Dt. iv. 27, xviii. 14, al.), Eom. ii. 14, A. xv. 
17, xxvi. 17, G. iv. 19, reKvla /jlov, 01)9 irdXiv wSlvco'^ 
2 Jo. 1, Kev. iii. 4 (like Eur. J^^upjü. 12, eTrrd yevvatcov 
TeKuoov, 01/9" Aristoph. Flut. 292), Jo. vi. 9, earc TratSdpLov ev 

^ [In A. xxiv. 18, if we retuin Uk; more difiicult reading Iv o7s, we should 
liiive an exaiii])le of a conatr. <uL scn.Hiiin of a soiiiewliat different kind : compare 
Mk. iii. 28, ßAa<rf'^iu,ieci ö<ra, av ßXua(pr,fjin(ru<ri)i, Dt. iv. '2, V. 28 (Tisch. Prol. p. i>8).] 


o)Se, o? ex^t (as most of tlie better MSS. read, for o of Eec), 
]\Ik. V. 41 (Esth. ii. 9), Col. ii. 15, Ta<; äp^a^; tc. r. e^ovaia^ . . . 
OpLa^ßevcra^ avrov^' Col. iL 19, ttjv K€(j>aX^]V (XpiaTov), ef ov 
irav TO aoifia k.tX. Jo. xv. 2G, however, is not an example of 
this kind, as irpevfia is only an apposition. For examples from 
Greek authors see Matth. 434, Wurm, Dinarch. 81 sq., Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. II. 368 (Jelf 379,819, Don. p. 362): comp. Draken- 
borch on Liv. 29. 12. In Rev. iii. 4, xiii. 14,al.,the readings vary. 

Under this head comes also Rev. xvii. 16, koX to. SeKa Kcpara a 
€tSc9 Koi TO Or]pLov, ovTOL p.L(Trj(Tovcn ; where, in accordance with the 
prophetic symbolism, K€para and Orjpiov are to be understood as signi- 
fying persons. 

3. On the same principle we find the plural of these pro- 
nouns used in relation to a singular noun, if this noun has a 
collective siirnification or is an abstract used for a concrete : 
Mt. i. 21, TOP \abv . . . . auTcov xiv. 14, Ph. ii. 15, yeued, iv 
ol?" 3 Jo. 9, r) iKfcXrjo-La . . . . avTcbv E. v. 12, (tkoto<; (eafco- 
TLdfiivoL) .... vTT avTOiV Mk. vi. 45 sq., . . . . tov 6)(Xov, 
KOL (iTTOTa^dfievo'; avTol^' Jo. XV. 6 (see Lücke in loc), L. vi. 
17 (comp. § 22. 3): A. xxii. 5 does not come in here. Compare 
Soph. Track 545, Time. 6. 91, 1. 136, Plat. Tim. 24 b, Fhcedr, 
260 a, Xen. Cijr. 6. 3. 4, Diod. S. 18. 6 : in the LXX this is 
very common, see Is. Ixv. 1, Ex. xxxii. 11, 33, Dt. xxi. 8, 1 S. 
xiv. 34; comp. Judith ii. 3, iv. 8, Ecclus. xvi. 8, Wis.^ v. 3, 7.^ 
Some have supposed that Ph. iii. 20, iv ovpavoU e'f ov, is an 
example of the inverse construction, the use of a singular pro- 
noun in reference to a plural noun (Bernh. p. 295); but i^ ov 
had in usage become a mere adverb, exactly equivalent to unde. 
On the other hand, in 2 Jo. 7, ovt6<; iaTcv 6 irXavo^ k.tX., 
there is a transition from the plural /x?) ofjuoXoyovvTe^; k.t.X. to 
the collective sin£fular. 

Different from these examples are A. xv. 36, Kara Tracrav ttoAiv, iv 
ats (where Tracra irokis, in itself, — without considering the inhabi- 
tants, — implies a plurality, Tracrat irokus ; comp. Poppe, Time. 1. 92), 
and 2 P. iii. 1, TavT-qv ■^S-q SevTepav vfxlv ypdcfio} iinaToX-qv, iv at? 
K.T.X., where Svo is implied in SevTepav. I do not know any exact 
parallel to this, but we may compare with it the converse Travre? o?Tt9, 
which is not at all uncommon (Rost p. 460, Jelf 819. 2. ß, Don. p. 

^ [A mistake. We may suhstitute Judith v. 3, 7, or Wis. xvi. 3, 20.] 
"^ Some commentators (e.g. Eeiche) thus explain Rom. vi. 21, r/v« xxprov it- 
X'-n TOTS 6^' oi; (i.e. KapTols) *wy £Ta«r;^;t/v£(r^i ; See however § 23. 2. 



Eem. 1. According to some commentators (e.g. Kühnöl) the pro- 
noun occasionally refers to a noun which is not expressed until after- 
wards ; e.g. Mt. xvii. 18, kirertix-qcrcv aurw (namely Tw 8at/xoi/tü)), A. 
xii. 21, €S>7/x7;yop€t TTpos avrovs (compare ver. 22, 6 Srjixo<;).^ But neither 
of these passages proves anything in regard to N. T. usage. In the 
first, avT(^ refers to the demoniac himself, for in the Gospels, as is 
well known, the person possessed and the possessing demon are often 
interchanged ; and the fact that Mark (ix. 25) has e-Trer. to) ttv. r<2 
aKaOdpTio is of no weight against this. In the other passage, avTov<s 
refers to the Tyrian and Sidonian ambassadors mentioned in ver. 20, 
as Kühnöl himself has admitted (comp. Georgi, Vind. p. 208 sq.): 
the verb '^-qjxrjyopdv does not stand in the way of this explanation, 
for the king's answer was given in a full assembly of the people. 

Rem. 2. The neuter of the interrogative pronoun rts and of the 
demonstrative oiSros (avros) are often used adverbially to denote ivhy 
{wherefore) and therefore. There is a similar use of the interrogative 
pronoun in Latin and German, quid cimdaris ? loas zögerst du ? As 
originally conceived, these words were true accusatives : see Herm. 
Fig. p. 882, Bernh. p. 130 (Jelf 580. Obs. 5). For the strengthened 
demonstrative avrb rcvro compare 2 P. i. 5, koI avro tovto cnrovSrjv 
TTucrav Trapctsej/cyKavre? (Xen. An. 1. 9. 21, Plat. Protcig. 310 e, aura 
ravra vvv yKoi ivapa ere) : see Matth. 470. 8, Ast, Plat. Legg. pp. 163, 
169, 214.'-^ G. ii. 10 does not come in here; see § 22. 4. For 
examples of rt, classified according to the very varied relations ex- 
pressed, see Wahl, Clav. 483. Greek writers also use 6 and a for Sl 
6 and St a (Matth. 477. e) ; but Meyer is wrong in introducing this 
mainly poetic use of a into A. xxvi. 16 (see § 39. Rem. 1) : in G. ii. 
10 Meyer himself rejects on this very ground Schott's proposal to 
take o for St 6. 

The demonstrative is also used adverbially in the distributive 
formula tovto fxlv . . . tovto Si, partly . . . partly (H. x. 33, Her. 
1. 30, 3. 132, Lucian, Nigr. 16); compare Wetstein II. 423, Matth. 
288. Rem. 2 (Jelf 579. 6).— On 1 0. vi. 11, raOra rtves ^re, where 
there is a mixture of two constructions, see § 23. 5.^ 

Section XXIL 

personal and possessive pronouns. 

1. The personal pronouns are used much more frequently in 
the N. T. than in ordinary Greek.* This peculiarity, which has 

^ Fritz. Conj. I. p. 18 sq.— See Gesen. Lehrg. p. 740, Bornem. Xen. Conv. 
p. 210. 

'■^ [See Alford in loc, Kllicott on E. vi. 22, Jelf I.e., Kiadell, Plat. Apol. p. 119 

' [Liineniann lu^n; adds a note on tlie use ot t/ in an exclamation (hoio), in 
]\It. vii. 14 (Lachrri.), \j. xii. 4U, 2 S. vi. 20 : on these passages, however, see 
p. .562.] 

* We find however a complete parallel in the Homeric use of the possessive 


its origin in Hebrew circumstantiality of expression, appears 
particularly in the use 

(a) Of avTov, aoO, etc., witli substantives (especially in con- 
nexion with the middle voice, § 38. 2): Jo. ii. 12, L. vi. 20, vii. 
50, xi. 34, xxiv. 50, Mt. vi. 17, xv. 2, Mk. xii. 30, 1 P. iii. 11,^ 
Itom. ix. 17, xvi. 7, A. xxv. 21, al.; compare 1 Mace. i. 6, Jos. 
xxiii, 2, xxiv. 1, Neh. ix. 34. 

(b) Of the accusative of the subject, in combination with the 
infinitive: L. x. 35, iycb iv tu) eTravep^ecrdal fie airoSayaü)' Jo. ii. 
24, H. vii. 24, A. i. 3. 

(c) Of the oblique cases of pronouns with both participle and 
principal verb : Mk. x. 16, evajKaXtad/jbevo'^ avra KarevXoyec 
Ttöet9 Ta9 %et/9a9 ctt' avrd' ix. 28, A. vii. 21, L. xvi. 2, 2 P. iii. 
16 (compare below, no. 4). So especially in the Apocalypse. 

In Mt. xxii. 37, Eev. ix. 21, the repetition of the pronoun is 
probably to be ascribed to rhythm. 

Along with this general tendency towards the accumulation 
of pronouns, we meet with some instances (though but few) 
in which a pronoun is not inserted where it might have been 
expected : A. xiii. 3, Kal eVt^eVre? ra? ')(elpa^ avTOi<; direXvaav 
(avTov^), Mk. vi. 5, E. v. 11, Ph. i. 6, 2 Thess. iii. 12, H. iv. 15, 
xiii. 17, 1 Tim. vi. 2, Jo. x. 29, L.xiv.4; compare Demosth. Conon 
728 b, ifMol TrepnreaövTe^i .... e^ehvaav? In Mt. xxi. 7, how- 
ever, the better reading is iireKaOiaev, and in 1 C. x. 9 Tretpd^eiv 
may be taken absolutely: in 2 Tim. ii. 11, avv avTa> would be 
heavy in a sententious saying. In 1 P. ii. 11 vfiäf; (found in 
some MSS. after irapaKoXo), in others after aTre-^eaOai) is cer- 
tainly not genuine. In acclamations, such as Mt. xxvii. 22, 
GTavp(o6r)T(D, the omission of the pronoun is very natural (here 
a German would use the infinitive without a pronoun, krmc' 
zigen !) ; yet in the parallel passage, Mk. xv. 1 3, we find 

pronoun os. In later (and sometimes in older) prose avTos also is thus used 
abundanter : see Schaff. Ind. jEsop. p. 124, Schoem. Isceiis p. 382. 

^ [This should be 1 P. iii. 10 ; but the pronouns have not much authorit3\ In 
Mt. XV. 2 also the reading is doubtful. The same redundancy is common in 
modern Greek: according to Mullach {Vulg. p. 315) this is to be ascribed to 
the influence of the LXX and N. T. But is it not natural to suppose that the 
free use of these pronouns would be a characteristic of the colloquial language 
of all periods ?] 

2 In Latin compare Sallust, Jug. 54. 1, universes in concione laudat atque 
agit gratias (iis) ; Cic. Orat. 1. 15, si modo erunt ad eum delata et tradita (ei) ; 
Liv. 1. 11, 20. Compare Kritz on the first passage. 


crravpccKTov avrov. The omission of the pronoun is carried 

much farther iu Greek authors.^ 

In E. iii. 18, tl to TrXaro? K.T.X., we can hardly help out the mean- 
ing by supposing an ellipsis of avr^s (dya-Trr/?) : see Meyer. Some 
(e.g. Kühnöl) have maintained that avTov<i is redundant in Mt. xxi. 
41, KaKovq KttKüj? (XTroXeo-et avrovs, — but altogether without reason. 
AYithout avTov^ the words would be quite general ; it is the pronoun 
that connects them with the case in question, with the yewpyoi 
mentioned in the parable. 

2. Instead of personal pronouns the nouns themselves are 
sometimes used. In some cases this arises from a certain inad- 
vertency on the writer's part ; in others, where there are several 
nouns to which the pronoun might possibly be referred, or 
where the noun stands at some distance, the design is to save 
the reader from uncertainty as to the meaning : see Jo. iii. 2 3 
sq., X. 41, L. iii. 19, E. iv. 12, and compare 1 K. ix. 1, xii. 1, 
Xen. Eph. 2. 13, Thuc. 6. 105, Diod. S. Exc. T. p. 29 (Ellendt, 
Arria7i I. 55). 

In. Jo. iv. 1, however, 'Ir)(Tov<; is repeated because the apostle 
wishes to quote the very words which the Pharisees had heard: 
compare 1 C. xi. 23. Those passages also in the discourses of 
Jesus in which the name of the person or office is repeated for 
the sake of emphasis, must not be referred to this head: Mk. ix. 
41, iv ovofjLan on XpLcTTov eVre* L. xii. 8, Tra? 8? äv ofioXoyijo-rj 
ev 6/jLol , . . Kal 6 L'to? Tov dvOpcoTTOv ojJLoXo'yrjaeL iv avro)' Jo. 
vi. 40, 1 C. i. 8, 21, 1 Jo. v. 6, Col. ii. 11, etc., etc.: compare 
Plat. Uuthyphr. p. 5 e, ^schyl. From. Vind. 312, Cic. Fa7n. 
2. 4. In all these instances the pronoun would be out of place, 
and would mar the rhetorical effect. Least of all can the well- 
known appellation o vlo^; rod dvOpcoTrov, under which Jesus in 
the Synoptic Gospels speaks of himself, as of a third person, be 
regarded as standing for iyco. Elsewhere we find the noun 
repeated for the sake of an emphatic antithesis: Jo. ix. 5, orav 
iv TM KoafjLM 0), (f)a)<; el pi tov /coap^ov xii. 47, ovk rfKÖov Iva Kplvco 
TOV Koapbov dXX Xva acoaco tov Koapbov (Xen. An. 3. 2. 23, ol 
ßacn\e(i)<; äKovTo<^ iv tj} ßaat\eco<; %w/3a .... otKOvcri), Arrian, 
AL 2. 18. 2, Krug. p. 134 (Liv. 1. 10.' 1, G. 2. 9, 38. 56. 3). 
Accordingly, no one will find an unmeaning repetition of the 
noun in Kom. v. 12, hC €v6<i dv6p. ^ dpLapTta 6t9 tov Koapu. 

1 S(i(; Jacol)s, Anfh. Pal. III. 294, Bromi, Lys. p. 50. Scluvf. Demosth. IV. 78, 
157, 232, Y. 550, 507. 


ei^T/X^e, Koi Sia rf/s" afjLapTLa<; 6 OcivaTo^', or in Jo. x. 29, 
6 irar/jp fioVy 09 SeBcoKe /jloo, fiel^ojv irdvTWv eaji kol ouoet? 
cvvarai dpTrd^etv eK ti}<; ^etpo? rod 7raTp6<; fxov : compare also 
A. iii. 16. See § 60. 

In A. X. 7 the better MSS. have the personal prononn (see Kühnöl 
hl Joe), and tc3 KopvrjXtii) is evidently a gloss. The passages which 
Bornemann (Xen. An. p. 190) quotes from Greek autliors are not 
all of tlie same description, nor is the reading certain in every case. 

It is not altogether correct to say ^ that the use of tlie noun in the 
place of avros or c/cdvos is a special peculiarity of Mark's style. In 
Mk. ii. 18 the nouns could not be dispensed with, for the writer 
could not put into the mouth of the inquirers an cKctvot which would 
point back to his own words. In vi. 41, and also in xiv. G7, the 
pronoun would have been very inconvenient. In ii. 27 the nouns are 
used for the sake of antithesis : i. 34, iii. 24, v. 9, x. 46, are instances 
of circumstantiality in expression (so common in Csesar), and not pro- 
perly of the substitution of nouns for pronouns ; comp. EUendt loc. cit. 

3. Through some negligence on the part of the writer, the 
pronoun avro^^ is not unfrequently used when the sentences im- 
mediately preceding contain no noun to which it can be directly 
referred. Such cases may be arranged in four classes : — 

(1) Most frequently the plural of this pronoun is used in 
reference to a collective noun, — particularly the name of a 
place or country (compare § 21. 3), in which the notion of the 
inhabitants is implied: Mt. iv. 23, iv raU avva'yw^aU avrcjv, 
i.e. TakiXaLwv (implied in oKriv T-qv TaXiXaiav), ix. 35 (L. iv. 
15), Mt. xi. 1, 1 Th. i. 9 (compare ver. 8), A. viii. 5, xx. 2 ; 2 C. 
ii. 12, 13, iXdojv el<; ttjv TpcodSa . . . dirora^dp^evo^; avroU' 
V. 19, 6eo<; rjv iv XpiarM Koajiov KaraXXaaaoyv 6avTw,/ii7] Xoyi- 
^ofievo^ avTOL<; rd irapaiTTwiiara' Jo. xvii. 2. This usage is sufli- 
ciently common in Greek writers; compare Thuc. 1. 27, 136, 
Lucian, Tim. 9. Dial. Mort. 12. 4, Dion. H. IV. 2117, Jacob, 
Luc. Toxcir. p. 59.^ — Akin to this case is the following: — 

(2) Avt6<^ refers to an abstract noun which must be supplied 
from a preceding concrete, or vice versa : Jo. viii. 44, -yjrevaTr]^ 
iarl KoX 6 Trarrjp avrov (yjrevBovs;), see Lücke in loc. ;^ Eom. 

^ Schulze in Keils Analect. II. ii. 112. 

2 On the whole subject compare Hermann, Diss, de pronom. auro;, in the Acta 
Seminar, jjhilol. Lips. Vol. I. 42 sqq., and in his Opusc. I. 308 sqq. [A. Buttm. 
Gr. p. 106.] 

^ It is a simpler case when alrö? in the plural refers to an abstract noun 
which in itself merely signifies a community of men, e.g. U«x»!<r/a : on this see 
§ 21. 3. On Col. iv. 15, with the reading ocItuv, see Meyer. [See also Alford, 
Avho adopts this reading on good authority, and Lightfoot, Col. pp. 309, 322.] 

* The other explanation, father of the liar, appears to be neither simpler in 


ii. 26, eav r] äKpoßvaria ra BiKaKofiara rov vofiov (jyvXdcrar), ov'yl 
7) cLKp. avTov (of such an dKpoßvärof;) eh TrepcTO/jLrjv Xoyccrd^ae- 
rai; comp. Theodoret I. 914, tovto Trj<; aTroaroXiKTJf; '^dpuro^; 
iSlov avTol^ yap {airoaToXoL^) k.t.X} In L. xxiii. 51, avrcov 
refers to the Sanhedrin, suggested by the predicate ßovKevTrj^, 
ver. 50 : compare Jon. i. 3, evpe ttXocov ßahl^ov ek Qapcrk . . . 
Kal äveßi] eh avrb rod TrXevaat p^er avrcov k.t.X., — see above, 
no. 2 [21. 2]; Sallust, Cat. 17. 7, simul confisum, si conjuratio 
valuisset, facile apud illos (i.e. conjuratos) principem se fore. 
Similar to this would be Mt. viii. 4, eh p^aprvptov avroh (Mk. i. 
44, L. V. 14), if the pronoun related to lepel in the preceding 
clause, the plural lepevac being supplied with avroh. But if 
the man who has been healed has already received from the 
priests permission to bring the prescribed purification-offering, 
the priest needs no further p^aprvpcov that he is clean : see 
below, no. 4. 

(3) Avt6<; has a reference which is at least suggested by 
some previous word, or by the verb of the sentence itself: 1 P. 
iii. 14, Tov Se (j)oßov avrcov py ^oßrjÖrjre' i.e. tmv KaKOVvrcov 
vp,ä<;, or of those from whom ye are to suffer {irda^eiv)} see 
Herrn. Vig. p. 714;^ E. v. 12, to, Kpv^r] yivopueva vir avTMv, 
that is, TMV TO. epya rov gkotov^ ttolovvtcov (ver. 11) ;* A. x. 10. 
Compare Aristoph. Flut 566, Thuc. 1. 22. 1, and Poppo in loc, 
Heinichen, Ind. ad Euseh. III. 539. On A. xii. 21 see § 21. 
liem. 1. 

(4) Avt6<; has no reference grammatically indicated in the 
previous context, but must be understood of a subject which is 
supposed to be familiar : L. i. 17, avrb^; irpoeXevaejai avrov, i.e. 

point of grammar nor preferable in sense ; indeed father of falsehood is a fuller 
conception for John, who loves what is abstract. [See Brückner in loc, who 
reviews the various explanations, and decides in favour of referring avrov — not 
to an abstract imj)lied in ■4'ivffT*is (Winer, De Wette), but — to ^Pivh? in the pre- 
ceding clause. See however p. 736, note ^,] 

^ For a similar exanijde witli a relative see Tcstam. Pair. j). 608, axixdXv'4'X 
ryi Jinffovi, oh {'^ccvavociots) tt^nv ö hoi fx.n ocroxaXv-^ai. Compare 
also the passage cited Irom an old poet by Cicero {Oral. 2. 46. 193): neque 
jjuternurn ads(jcctum es veritus, quern (patreni) aitate cxacta indigem Liberum 
lacerasti ; and Gell. 2. 30. 6. 

^ [That is, the subject of «üt-wv must be supplied either from o xaxu<ru¥ in 
ver. 13, or 'rciff;^oi'ri in ver. 14.] 

' Oth(;i'wise in Kpijjlian. II. 308 a : iv^ul fji,oi, 'xu.'np, ovw; vyiocUoo' . . . -tc'kttivi, 

TiKvov, Toy iffTetvpu/y.ivuij koc,) ii,iii TUVTriv {i/ynav). 

■* [Winer gives a somewhat dillcirent exj)lanation on j), 177 : Meyer and 
Ellicott refer the pronoun to rols vlovs tyu ü-tt, in ver. 6, J 


before the Messiah ^ (see Kühnöl in loc), avT6<; being used as 
ill avTo^ 6(t>a, in reference to one who is recognised within a 
certain circle as head or leader: in 1 Jo. ii. 12, 2 Jo. 6, 2 P. iii. 
4, the pronoun is thus used of Christ. In L. v. 1 7, ek to läddai 
avTov^, the pronoun expresses the general notion, the sick, those 
who required healing (amongst the persons present in the syna- 
gogue) : the pronoun cannot refer back to ver. 15, though even 
Bengel so explains it. On the other hand, in A. iv. 5 avjoiv 
refers to the Jews, among whom the events recorded occurred ; 
their priests, etc., are however mentioned in ver. 1, and \aö^ 
is used more than once in ver. 1 sq. of the Jewish people. In 
Mt. xii. 9 the pronoun refers to those amongst whom Jesus then 
was, the Galileans. In H. iv. 8, viii. 8, xi. 28, it refers to the 
Israelites, suggested to the reader's mind by the circumstances 
just spoken of. The above-mentioned eU fiapTvpiov avroh, Mt. 
viii. 4, comes in here : those meant by avTol<; are the Jews (the 
Jewish public), — the circle in which the injunctions of Moses (o 
Trpo^era^e Mcovarjf;) are binding. In Jo. xx. 15, auroz/ supposes 
that the inquirer must know who is spoken of, inasmuch as he 
has taken Him away ; or else Mary, herself engrossed with the 
thought of the Lord, attributes her own ideas to the person 
whom she is addressino-.^ 

In L. xviii. 34 avrot points back to tov<; SwSeKa and avrov? in ver. 
31 (the intervening words are a saying of Jesus) ; in H. iv. 13 avrov 
refers to rov Oeov in ver. 12 ; and in L. xxi. 21 avrrj^ refers to 'lepov- 
craXrifx, ver. 20. In 2 C. vi. 17, e/c /xecrov avTwv, in a somewhat trans- 
formed quotation from the 0. T., relates to a-KLo-roi, ver. 14 ; and in 
Eom. X. 1 8 avTtiiv suggests to every reader the preachers mentioned 
in concreto in ver. 15. On A. xxvii. 14, where some refer avrrj^ to 
the ship, see Kühnöl.^ In L. ii. 22, by avroiv we are to understand 
mother and child (Mary and Jesus). The commentators on H. xii. 
17 are in doubt whether avrr^v refers to /xeravotav or to cvXoytav ; but 
the correlation of evpLo-Ketv and kKt^rjrfiv of itself renders the former 
the more probable reference. In Mt. iii. 16 avrw and Itt avrov 
unquestionably relate to Jesus. 

A slight negligence of another kind appears in Mt. xii. 15, xix. 2, 
y)Ko\ovOr](Tav ovtQ 6)(Xol ttoXXoI kol iOepaTrevcrev avrovs Travras. Here 

^ [Against this, see Meyer and Alford in loc. In L, v. 17 airiv is probably 
the true reading.] 

2 Compare also Poppo, Xen. Cj/r. 3. 1. 31, 5. 4. 42, Thuc. III. i. 184, Lehmann, 
Lucian II. 325, IV. 429, Stallb. Plat. Bep. II. 286 ; and on the whole subject 
see Van Hengel, Annotat. p. 195 sqq. 

^ [Meyer, Altord, and others with good reason refer aurtis to Kpr^rrv, ver. 13.] 


the pronoun grammatically refers to ox^^ol, but this reference is of 
course loose in point of logic, — he healed them (i.e. the sick who were 
in the crowds) in a body: in xiv. 14, iOep. Tov<i appioa-Tov^ avrCjv. 
Compare also L. v. 17. 

According to some commentators the demonstrative ovrosis similarly- 
construed ad sensuni in 2 C. v. 2, Tovnü being supposed to agree with 
crto/xart implied in rj cTTtyeios t^/xcov otKta tov a-Krjvovi ; but it is much 
simpler to supply o-KT/vet (ver. 4). That however the Greeks did use 
the demonstrative as well as avro? with some looseness of reference is 
well known; compare Mätzner, Antiph. p. 200 : A. x. 10 would be 
an instance of this, if the reading iKetvwv for avrwv were correct. 

4. («) When the principal noun is followed by several other 
words, we often find avro^; and the other personal pronouns in- 
troduced into the same sentence, for the sake of perspicuity : 
Mk. V. 2, i^eXOovTi avTa> eK tov irkoiov evOeco^; airrjvTrjaev avrat' 
ix. 28, Mt. iv. 16, v. 40, viii. 1, xxvi. 71, A. vii. 21,^ Ja. iv. 17, 
Rev. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 13, koI vfiä^ veKpov<; ovra^ iv rot^ irapairTO)- 
liacTiv Kol rfj äKpoßvdTLa rrj'^ aapKo<; vfxcov avve^woTroLrjcrev vjia'^ 
K.T.X. ; Ph. i. 7. In most of these instances a participial clause 
having the force of a sentence proper has preceded : in this case 
Greek authors often add the pronoun, as Paus. 8. 38. 5, Herod. 
3. 10. 6. Compare further Plat. A'pol. 40 d, Symp. c. 21, Xen. 
Cyr. 1. 3. 15, CEc. 10. 4, Paus. 2. 3. 8, Arrian, Epict 3. 1, Cic. 
Catil 2. 12. 27, Liv. 1. 2, Sail. Catil 40. 1, Herm. Soph. Tracli. 
p. 54, Schwarz, Comment, p. 217.^ In Jo. xviii. 1 1, to iroTrjpiov 
o BiScoKEv fjLOi 6 irartjp, ov firj irloa avTo ; the pronoun is used 
for emphasis : so also in Mt. vi. 4, 1 P. v. 10 (A. ii. 23), Kev. 
xxi. 6. — After a case absolute the pronoun is almost necessarily 
added, in the case required by the verb: Rev. iii. 12, o vi/ccov, 
TTOLTjao) avTov Jo. XV. 2, Mt. xii. 36, A. vii. 40 ; compare Plat. 
Thecet 173 d, ^1. Anim. 5. 34, 1. 48, al. 

(b) A redundancy of this kind is still more common in rela- 
tive sentences: Mk. vii. 25, yvv)], rj^; eZ^e to dvydrpiov avTrj<; 
TTvev/jLa uKciOapTov i. 7, Pev. vii. 2, oh eSoOij auTol<i äScKrjaac 
rrjv yrjv k.t.X., iii. 8, vii. 9, xiii. 8, xx. 8 ; similarly in Mk. xiii. 
19, OXlyjnf;, oia ov yeyove roiavrr) cltt apyrj^ /cT/ö-eo)?. So also 
with a relative adverb : llev. xii. 0, 14, oirov e;)^et eVet tottov 


^ [There is coiisidoraLle authority for tlie genitive absolute in Mk. v. 2, ix. 28, 
A. vii. 21 ; and lor tlie omission of awr«? in Alt. vi. 4, Rev. xxi. G.J 
=* [Comp. Jelf 658. 2, 699. Obs. 3, Creen p. 118 s«].] 


Such instances of pleonasm occur niucli more frequently in 
the LXX,in accordance with the Hebrew idiom : ^ Ex. iv. 17, 
Lev. xi. 32, 34, xiii. 52, xv. 4, 9, 17, 20, 24, 26, xvi. 9, 32, 
xviii. 5, Num. xvii. 5, Dt. xi. 25,Jos. iii. 4, xxii. 19, Jud. xviii. 
5, 6, Ruth i. 7, iii. 2, 4, 1 K xi. 34, xiii. 10, 25, 31,2 K. xix. 4, 
Bar. ii. 4, iii. 8, Neh. viii. 12, ix. 19, Is. i. 21, Joel iii. 7, Ps. 
xxxix. 5, Judith v. 19, vii. 10, x. 2, xvi. 3, 3 (1) Esdr. iii. 5, 
iv. 54, vi. 32, al. : see Thiersch, De Pentat. Alex. p. 126 sq. 
In Greek prose, however, avro^;'^ and the demonstrative pro- 
nouns are sometimes superadded in a relative sentence, as Xen. 
Cijr. 1. 4. 19, Diod. S. 1. 97, 17. 35, Paus. 2. 4. 7, Soph. 
Philoct. 316 (compare in Latin, Cic. Fam. 4. 3, Acad. 2. 25, 
Philipp. 2. 8) ; but the demonstrative is probably very seldom 
found so near the relative ^ as in most of the examples quoted 
above, — almost all of which are found in passages which are 
Hebraistic in style.* 

In A. iii. 13 [Rec^ the relative construction is dropped in the 
second sentence (see below p. 186) : in Rom. vii. 21 the first and 
second c/xot seem to me to belong to diflferent sentences, see § 61. 5. 
Those passages also are of a different kind in which the personal 
pronoun is accompanied by some other word, by means of which the 
relative is more closely defined and explained : G. iii. 1, oh Kar 6- 
<:f>6a\ixov<;'lr](rov^Xp. 7rpo€ypdcf>r) iv v/juv {in aJlimis vestris) ecrravpoj/xevos 
(Lev. XV. 16, xxi. 20, xxii. 4, Ruth ii. 2) ; Rev. xvii. 9, ottov r] yvvrj 
KaO-qrai lir avrwv xiii. 12 ; compare Gen. xxiv. 3, 37, Jud. vi. 10, Ex. 
xxxvi. 1, Lev. xvi. 32, Judith ix. 2. Likewise in G. ii. 10, o koI 
ia-TTovBaa-a avTo tovto TroiTycrat, the emphasis which is given by the 
annexed avro, strengthened by tovto, is unmistakeable ^ (Bornem. 
Lice. p. liv). 

1 P. ii. 24, OS ras afxapTia<; rj/xCjv avrb<; av^veyKev k.t.X., certainly 
cannot be brought in here : it is obvious that avro? must be taken by 
itself, and that it brings out more forcibly the antithesis with ajxapT. 
rj/xwv. In Mt. iii. 1 2, ov to tttvov iv rfj x^tpt avrov, the relative serves 
instead of tovtov to connect this sentence with the preceding one, and 
the two pronouns are to be taken separately, — as if the words ran, 
He has Ids ivinnounng shovel in his hand. In E. ii. 10, however, oU 

1 See Gesen. Lg. p. 734. [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 200 (Bagst), Kalisch, Hebr. 
Gr. I. 226.] 

- Gottling, Callim. p. 19 sq., Ast, Plat. PoUt. p. 550. 

^ In Aristoph. Av. 1238, the Cod. Rav. has ol; ^vriov avToTg, for the ordinary- 
reading o7; ovTiov uvTov;. Ou another accumulation of the pronoun see § 23. 3. 

* See also Herrn. Soph. Philoct. p. 58, A^c. Fritzsche, Qucest. Lucian. p. 109 sq. 
Jelf 833. Obs. 2, Green p. 121.] 

^ ["Which, namely this very thing : " Ellicott in loc] 


TrporjTOLfxacrev is for a TrporjroLixacrev, by attraction. Lastly, iv Kvp'no 
in E. ii. 2 1 probably belongs to ets vaov ayiov. 

We sometimes find avros repeated within a brief space, though 
different objects are referred to : Mk. viii. 22, <f>€pov(nv avrio (Xpio-rw) 
TvcfiXov K. TrapaKoXovcTLv avTov (Xptcrrov), Iva avrov (Tvcfikov) axj/rjrat' 
Mk. ix. 27, 28 : so also ouros in Jo. xi. 37. Compare § 67. 

After a relative sentence, where we might expect a repetition of os 
or a continuance of the relative construction, Greek writers not un- 
frequently, indeed almost regularly (Bernh. p. 304, Jelf 833. 2), 
change the structure of the sentence and substitute koL avros (ovtos:).^ 
From the N". T. may be quoted 2 P. ii. 3, oU to Kpc/xa eKnaXat ovk 
dpyet, KOL 7] ttTTwAeia avroiv ov vvcrrd^eL' A. Üi. 13 [T^^f.], 1 C. viii. 6 : 
it is less correct to bring in here Kev. xvii. 2, /xeö' rj<; iTvopvevcrav 
. . . Kai ipi^OvcrOrjcrav Ik tov olvov rrj^ Tropvet'a? avrrjs, for the relative 
construction was here necessarily avoided on account of the nouns 
to be connected with the pronoun. In Hebrew, owing to the sim- 
plicity of its structure, the continuation of the construction without 
the relative is very common; but we must not, by supplying "IK^'&5 with 
the subsequent clause, give to the sentence a turn which is foreign 
to the character of the language. — To require the relative instead of 
avros or ovTo^ in such passages as Jo. i. 6, A. x. 36, L. ii. 36, xix. 2, 
is to misapprehend the simplicity of the N. T. diction, especially as 
similar examples are not unfrequently to be found in Greek authors 
(^lian 12. 18, Strabo 8. 371, Philostr. Sojyh. 1. 25) ; comp. Kypke I. 
347. In 1 C. vii. 13, however, for ^rts ex^c avSpa aTna-rov KOL avTOS^ 
(7vvevSoK€L K.T.A., Paul might also have written o? avvevSoKei. 

In the N. T., as elsewhere, 6 avros the same is followed by a dative 
of the person, in the sense of the same with, as in 1 C. xi. 5 ; compare 
Her. 4. 119, Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 13, 2. 1. 5, Cyr. 3. 3. 35, 7. 1. 2, Isocr. 
Paneg. c. 23, Plat. Menex. 244 d, Dio C. 332. 97. 

Rem. In classical Greek, as is well known, the nominative of 
avros is not used for the unemphatic he (Kriig. pp. 128, 135). Nor 
can any decisive instance of such a usage be adduced from the N. T.^ 
(compare Fritz. Matt. p. 47) : even in Luke, who uses avros most 

1 See Herin. Vig. p. 707, Ast, Plat. Legg. p. 449, Boisson. Nie. p. 32, Bornem. 
Xen. Coiiv. ]>. 196, Stallb. Plat. Profag. p. 68, Bep. I. 197, Foertsch, Obs. in 
LyHiam, p. 67, Weber, Dem. p. 355 ; Teipel, Scrlptores Orcee., Germ., Lat. a 
relativa verhör, construct, sn'pe neque injuria semper discessisse (Coesfeld 1841): 
coni])are Grotefend, Lat. Gram. § 143. 5, Kritz, Sallast II. 540. 

^ [Here tin; true njading is certainly xcti ouro$ : hence we must read *«) «.uTn 
in the jjrecediiif^ verse.] 

^ According to 'I'hiersch {De Pcntat. Vers. Alex. p. 98), tlic LXX use the 
masc. a,vro; for tlic simple pronoun (/«'), but not airri or ccIto, the demonstrative 
being regularly used instead of these. As regards the Apocrypha, Wahl denies 
this usage altogether {(Jlav. p. 80). [In tlie N. T. passages editors are divided 
between avrr, and «.urv (as in L. ii. 37, vii. 12) : L. xi. 14 might be an example 
of alro so used, if the words xoci alrl tiv were genuine. See A. Buttm. p. 109, — 
also ^MuUach, Vulg. p. 192 s<[.] 


frequently (compare especially L. v. IG, 17, xix. 2), it never occurs 
Avithout a certain degree of emphasis. It denotes 

a. Self, in antitheses of various kinds, and for all three persons : 
Mk. ii. 25, €7r£tVa(r€j/ avros kul ot /xcr avTov' A. xviii. 19, ckciVovs 
KartAiTTCi/ avro9 Sk ilcrekOiov k.t.X., L. V. 37, X. 1, Xviii. 39, 1 C 111. 
15, Mk. i. 8, Jo. iv. 2, vi. G, ix. 21, L. vi. 42, ttojs SvvaaraL Xeyav . . . 
avro? T7)v iv to) 6(fi6aXfXiü aov Sokov ov ßXiinsiv' H. xi. 11, Trto'TCt Kat 
avr^ 2appa 3vvap,tv ct? KaraßoXrjv (nrip/xaTO^ eXaßev, even Sarah her- 
self (who had been unbelieving), Jo. xvi. 27, avro? 6 Trarrjp cjuXic vfj.a<;, 
He himself, of himself (without entreaty on my part, ver. 20), Kom. 
viii. 23. Avrd? is thus used by the disciples in speaking of Christ 
(compare the familiar avros €<f>a), Mk. iv. 38, L. v. 16, ix. 51 (xxiv. 
15), xxiv. 3G ; compare Fischer, Ind. Theophan. s. v. avrog. See the 

h. He, with emphasis, — he and no other: Mt. i. 21, KaAccrcis to 
ovojua avTov 'Irjcrovv' avros yap (TioaeL tov Xaov' Xli. 50, Col. 1. 1/. 
Avros does not stand for the unemphatic hem L. i. 22 {he himself, as 
contrasted with the others : eVeyvwo-av), ii. 28 (he, Simeon, as con- 
trasted with the parents of Jesus, ver. 27), iv. 15, vii. 5 (he by him- 
self, at his own expense), A. xiv. 12 (he, Paul, as the principal person, 
ver. ll),i Mk. vii. 36 [Bec.].'^ (On the antithesis avroi . . . iv iav- 
rots, Rom. viii. 23, see Fritz, in loc.) 

5. The reflexive pronoun eavrov, which, as compouuded of 
e and avro^;, naturally belongs to the third person, is regularly 
so used in the K T., — not unfrequently in antithesis and with 
emphasis (1 C. x. 29, xiv. 4, E. v. 28, aL). Where how^ever 
no ambiguity is to be apprehended, it is used for the other 
persons : — 

a. In the plural. For the 1st person : Eom. viii. 23 (vf^eU) 
avTol iv iavToc<; arevd^ofiev 1 C. xi. 31, 2 C. i. 9, x. 12, A. 
xxiii. 14, al. For the 2d person : Jo. xii. 8, tov^ tttw^ov^ 
TrdvTore e^ere /leO' eavroov Ph. ii. 12, rrjv eavrojv acoTTjpiav 

» [Liinemann adds 1 Th. iii. 11, iv. 16, v. 23, 2 Th. ii. 16, iii. 16 ; but these 
should rather come under (a).] 

2 [The same view of the N. T. use of the nominative of avro; is taken by 
Fritzsche, Meyer, Liinemann, and others. On the other side see A. Buttmann 
(Gr. p. 106 sqq.), who maintains, {l)that, even if AViner's assertions are correct, 
they do not prove that N. T. usage agrees in this point with that of the classic 
writers : (2) that there are not a few passages in which uIto; is used though 
there is neither emphasis nor contrast. Compare also Ellicott on Col. i. 17 : 
" Though avTo; appears both in this and the great majority of passages in the 
N. T. to have its proper classical force ('ut rem abaliis rebus discernendain esse 
indicet,' Hermann, Dissert. avTo;, 1), the use of the corresponding Aramaic pro- 
noun should make us cautious in pressing it in every case."" Similarly Green, 
Gr. p. 117. On the classical usage see Don. pp. 375, 462, and Jelf 654. 1, 656 ; 
and as to modern Greek (in which the nomin. of oclrös is used for he) see Mullach 
p. 317.] 


Karepyd^eaOe' Mt. iii. 9, xxiii. 31, A. xiii. 46, H. iii. 13, x. 
25, al. (Jelf 654 2. &.) 

b. In the singular, — though far less frequently (Bernh. p. 
272). For the 2d person : Jo. xviii. 34, dcf)' iavrov av tovto 
\ey€L<;, where aeavrov in B and other MSS. is certainly a cor- 
rection : in Eom. xiii. 9, Mt. xxii. 39 (from the LXX), and G. 
V. 14, aeavTov is the better readino-. 

This usage is also found in Greek writers : ^ for (h) compare 
Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 9, Ci/r. 1. 6. 44, Aristot. Mcom. 2. 9, 9. 9, 
^lian 1. 21, Arrian, Upid. 4. 3. 11.^ On iavrcovhv dWrjXcov 
see the lexicons: compare Doderlein, Sijnon. III. 270 (Jelf 
654. 3). 

A.VTOV is frequently used by (Attic) Greek writers as a reflexive : ^ 
the MSS. however often vary between avTov and avrov.^ To decide 
between the two on internal grounds is the more difficult because the 
Greeks use the reflexive pronoun even when the principal subject is 
remote,^ and because in many cases it depended entirely on the 
writer's preference whether the reflexive pronoun should be used or 
not.^ In the N. T. also — where from the time of Griesbach avTov has 

1 See Locella, Xen. Eph, 164, Bremi, ^Eschin. Oratt. I. 66, Herrn. Soph. 
Track. 451, Boisson. Philostr. Her. p. 326, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 932, Held, 
Plut. jEni. Paul. p. 130. Compare however the assertion of an ancient gram- 
marian, Apollonius, in Wolf and Buttmann's Mus. Antlq. Studior. I. 360, and 
Eustath. ad Odyss. i\ p. 240. 

^ [In Jo. xviii. 34, Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, read 
(TictvTod, with the best MSS. : Rom. xiii. 9, Mt. xxii. 39, G. v. 14, are a^^ from the 
LXX (Lev. xix. 18, also quoted in Mt. xix. 19, Mk. xii. 31, L. x. 27, Ja. ii. 8), and 
here also the best MSS. have ffia.vTov. " It is worthy of notice that, in those 
j)assages of the classics in which the singular of iavrov is thus used, there is almost 
always considerable uncertainty of reading : this is not the case with the ex- 
amples of the plural. And since it is often in the inferior and later MSS. that 
we ttnd these examples, we may at any rate assume it as certain that this usage 
was in later times tolerably general (indeed almost universal in the case of the 
plural), and was therefore very familiar to the transcribers. Hence the common 
assumption that throuylt ignorance of this idiom tlie transcribers altered the 3d 
person into the 1st or 2d, must be given up in regard to the passages in the 
2J. T., and to many of those in earlier writers." A. Buttm. Or. p. 114. In 
modern Greek iavrov is used for all three persons ; the popular language ex- 
presses i/u-avrov by rod iuvtov ju.ou : sce MuUach, l^ulg. pp. 207, 320 sf[., J. Donald- 
son, Or. p. 17. See further Lightfoot on G. v. 14, Jelf 654. 2. b, Jebb, Soph. 
Electra, p. 30.] 

•■' Arndt, De pronorn. reflex, ap. Graic. (Neobrandcnli. 1836). 

•* In later writers (as vKsop, the Scholiasts, al.) airov seems to predominate j 
see Schaff. Ind. ad A'W>jk \). 124, and comp. Thilo, Apocr. 1. 1()3. 

^ Compare how(!ver ilcJd, I'lut. Tirnol. \). 373. 

« See Buttm. Demosth. Alidias, Exc. x. p. 140 sqq., F. Hermann, Comm. Crlt. 
ad Plutarch, superst. p. 37 sq., Benseier, Isoer. Areopag. ]>. 220. — Bremi (in the 
Jahrb. der Philol. IX. p. 171) says : " On the use of ocv-ov and ai/rov certain 


been frequently introduced — careful editors have often been in doubt 
which of these two pronouns to prefer. In some passages either 
would be apj)roj)riate. In ]\It. ill. IG, for instance, dSe to irviv/xa rov 
Oeov . . . Ipx^n-ivov eV avTov would be said from the narrator's point 
of view, whilst €<^' avroj' would refer directly to the subject of the 
verb ctSc, namely Jesus (Kriig. p. 130). In general, it is im])robable 
that the N. T. writers, whose style of narration is so simple (who, to 
quote a similar case, drop the relative construction, instead of carrying 
it on to a second clause, see p. 18G), would use the reflexive pronoun 
when the subject is remote, i.e. when the subject and pronoun are not 
in the same clause. Accordingly, in Mt. /.c.,^ E. i. 17, we should un- 
hesitatingly write avTov, avTov; but in A. xii. 11, H. v. 7, Kom. xiv. 
14, avTov : see Fritz. Matt. Exc. 5, p. 858 sqq. — where also Matthias's 
view (Eur. Ipliig. Aul. 800, and Gr. 148. Kem. 3) is examined, — and 
Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 159 sq. On the other hand, the fact noticed by 
Bengel {Appar. ad Mt. i. 21) deserves attention — that in the MSS. of 
the N. T. the prepositions a-jro, cVi, vtto, Kara, /xcra, are never written 
d(^', €</)', etc., when they come before avTov; from which w^e might 
conclude with Bleek (Hehr. II. 69) that the N. T. writers were not 
acquainted with the form avrov, but always used kavrov instead where 
the reflexive pronoun was needed. And as those uncial MSS. of the 
K. T. and the LXX which possess diacritical marks have for the most 
part avTov exclusively,^ — though, it is true, these MSS. are not older 
than the eighth century, and the ^^ fere constanter" leaves us to wish 
for a more accurate collation, — recent editors almost always write 
avTov. In most of the passages there is no need whatever of a re- 
flexive pronoun ; but it is difficult to believe that in Rom, iii. 25 Paul 
WTOte €is evSet^iv Trj<; SLKaLOcrvvr)<; avrov (over against ev atyu-art avrov), Or 
that John wrote avro^ -n-epl avrov in ix. 21 : compare also E. i. 9, 
Rom. xiv. 14, L. xix. 15, xiii. 34, Mk. viii. 35, Rev. xi. 7, xiii. 2. 
For these reasons, the decision between avrov and avTov in the 
N. T. must (as in classical Greek) be left to the cautions judgment of 

rules may be easily and safely laid down, but there are cases in which the 
decision between the two words will always remain doubtful, and it is much 
more difficult to hit the mark in Greek than in Latin .... "When in the mind 
of the writer the reference to the subject predominates, the reflexive is used ; 
when the subject is viewed as more remote, the 3d personal pronoun. In Greek 
one must give oneself up to his own personal feeling, — to the mood of the 
moment, if you will." On reciprocation in general, see some good observations 
by Hoffmann in the Jahrb. der Piniol. VII. p. 38 sqq. [Jelf 653, Frost, Thucyd, 
pp. 269, 296, 317.] 

^ [Even if the question were not decided here by the preceding W (not lip'). 
To the prepositions mentioned below Llinemann adds ävr/.] 

2 Tischend. Praf. N. T. p. 26 sq., [p. 58, ed. 7]. 

^ [A. Buttmann {Gr. p. Ill) urges the following additional reasons in favour 
of the opinion that ikutov is almost always the form used by the N. T. writers 
when they wish to employ the reflexive pron. of the 3d pers., and that therefore 
avToZ must in most cases be written without the aspirate. (1) In the 2d person 
we always find tnuvTov, not aavToZ. (2) The ordinary rule for the position of 


6. The personal pronouns iyoo, av, rj/juelf;, etc., cannot be dis- 
pensed with in the oblique cases ; but in the nominative they 
are regularly omitted, unless there belongs to them (usually in 
consequence of antithesis) some emphasis, manifest or latent : 
Ph. iv. 11, iycb e/jiaOov iv 0I9 elfu avrcipKr}^ elvac Jo. ii. 10, 
Tra? äv6pco7ro<; . . . . av TeT^pr)Ka<; k.tX., Rom. vii. l7, L. xi. 19, 
A. X. 15, Mk. xiv. 29, Jo. xviii. 38 sq., G. ii. 9 ; A. xi. 14, 
awOrjo-r} <jv fcal 6 oIko^ crov Jo. x. 30, A. xv. 10, 1 C. vii. 12, 
L. i. 18; Mt. vi. 12, ä(j)6<; r^fuv to, ocpeiXij/jLaTa rj/juMV co? Kal 
r)fji€L<; a^rjKajxev k.t.X.; Jo. iv. 10, av av yrrjaa^; avrov (whereas 
/ asked of thee, ver. 7, 9), Mk. vi. 37, 3ot6 avrot^ vfieU (jyayelu 
{ye, since they themselves have no provisions with them, ver. 36), 
Jo. vi. 30, xxi. 22, Mk. xiii. 9, 23, 1 C. ii. 3 sq., Mt. xvii. 19, 
2 Tim. iv. 6. So where the person is characterised by a word 
in apposition, as in Jo. iv. 9, ttco? crv 'IovBaLo<; a>v k.tX., Rom. 
xiv. 4, (TV t/? el 6 Kpivcov aXkorpiov olKerrjv Jo. x. 33, A. i. 24, 
iv. 24, L. i. 76, E. iv. 1 : or where there is reference to some 
description contained in the previous context, as in Jo. v. 44 
(ver. 42, 43), Rom. ii. 3 ; or where it is supposed that such a 
description will suggest itself, as in Jo. i. 30, L. ix. 9 (I, who as 
king cannot be mistaken as to what has taken place), E. v. 32 
(I, as apostle), Jo. ix. 24, G. vi. 8,^ 1 C. xi. 23. In an address 
av is found particularly when one out of many is indicated (Jo. 
i. 43, Ja. ii, 3), or where the person addressed is made promi- 
nent by an attributive, as in 2 Tim. iii. 1 [ii. 1 ?], Mt. xi. 23. 

In no instance do we lind these pronouns expressed where 
no emphasis rests upon them, and where consequently they 
might have been omitted^ (Bornem. Xen. Conv. 187). If, for 
instance, we find in E. v. 32, iyco Be Xeyco ek Xpiarov, but 

tcuToZ and luvrov, in a possessive sense (0 ta-vToZ -Trocrnp, <roc,rrip avrou, see Jelf 
652. 3), is commonly observed in the N. T. (3) The 1st and 2d personal pro- 
nouns are very frequently used in the N. T. instead of the reflexive, unless the 
pronoun is immediately dependent on the verb. On the principle of the ex- 
ception just named, Buttmann would write auT. in Jo. ii. 24, xix. 17, A. xiv. 17, 
Kev. viii. 6, xviii. 7 ; unless indeed the full form laur. be received. See Ellicott 
on E. i. 9. — Winer often writes ocvtov where all recent editors have ccütöÜ.] 

' [A mistake, i)roba})ly for G. vi. 17 (a i)assa^'e quoted in ed. 5, as illustrating 
the use of the pronoun without direct antithesis), or for 1 C!. vi. 8. A few lines 
above I have written 2 Tim. for 1 Tim. (iv. 0), on tlie authority of ed. 5.] 

2 [See Green, (Jr. pp. 113-116. The opposite view, that the nominative of the 
pronoun is often expressed in the N. T. where no ])articular emphasis is intended, 
is maintained ])y A. Buttmann (p. 132). In modern Greek the classical usage 
is observed (MuUach p. 311).] 


simply Xeyo) 8e in 1 C. i. 12, l\om. xv. 8, there is an emphasis 
designed in the first passage and none in the others. In regard 
to the omission or insertion, and also the position, of these pro- 
nouns, the MSS. vary very greatly : the decision must not be 
made to depend on any fancied peculiarity of a writer's style 
(Gersdorf p. 472 sq.), but on the nature of the sentence. 

The personal pronoun is inserted and omitted in two consecutive 
sentences in L. x. 23 sq., ol ßk€7rovT€<s a ^A-cVctc .... ttoXXoI irpo- 
(f>7JTaL .... rjOeXrja-av iSeiv, a v/xcls ßX^Trere. But it is only in the 
latter case that there is any real antithesis ({»/xct? in contrast with 
7rpo(f>rJTaL, ßacnXe'i'i, etc.) : in ver. 23, the 6(f>0aXjxoL ßX^wovres a ßXiiriTe 
are, properly speaking, none other than those of whom the ^AeVcrc 
is predicated. Compare 2 C. xi. 29, rt? dcr^cvet koX ovk ao-öevcu; rts 
(TKavSaXil^eTaL kol ovk eyw Trvpov/xai : ^ here we must not overlook the 
fact that in the second member -n-vpov/xac (which the apostle attributes 
to himself) is a stronger word than crKavSaXt^ea-OaL In 1 C. xiii. 12, 
TOT€ iTnyvüJcro/JLat KaOw<; kol iTreyviocrOrjv, some authorities add cyco to the 
latter verb, but improperl}^, since the contrast is expressed by the 
voice of tlie verb. 

It may be remarked in passing that, in some books of the 0. T., 
the expressive ^3JJ^ with a verb is rendered in the LXX by c'yw 

elfML, accompanied by the 1st person of the verb; e.g. Jud. xi. 27, 
^nSDn iö '•^JK'i, KOL vvv cyw et/xt ovx rjfxapTov : compare v. 3, vi. 18, 

1 K.h. 2. 

On avros eyw (in A. x- 2G, eyü) auros) see Fritz. Rom. II. 75. 

7. The possessive pronouns are sometimes to be taken object- 
ively : L. xxii. 19, r] ifir] dvd/üLvr}o-L<;, memoria r:iei (1 C. xi. 
24), Eom. xi. 31, rw vfierepw eXier xv. 4, 1 C. xv. 31, xvi. 17 ; 
but not Jo. XV. 10.^ So also in Greek wTiters, especially in 
poetry: Xen, Cy7\ 3. 1. 28, evvoia koL (f)iXia rf} ififj' Thuc. 
1. 77, TO rjfierepov Seo?" 6. 89, Plat. Go7^[/. 486 a, Antiphon 6. 
41, al.^ As to Latin, compare Kritz on Sallust, Cat. p. 243. 

The N. T. writers occasionally employ lBlo<; instead of a per- 
sonal pronoun, by the same kind of misuse as when in later 
Lütm proprius takes the place oi situs or ejus (compare also oiK€Lo<i 
in the Byzantine writers^). Thus in Mt. xxii. 5 we have 

' [" Who is made to stumble without my being the one who burns ? Of the 
offence which another takes, I have the pain." Meyer.] 

2 [This should be xv. 9 (or 11).] 

'^ [Jelf 652. Obs. 6: for the N. T. see Green, Gr. p. 124, where the limited use 
of possessive pronouns in the N. T. is also noticed.] 

* See for example the Indices to Agathias, Petr. Patricius, Priscus, Dexippus, 
Glycas, and Theophanes, in the Bonn edition. [Mullach, Vidfj. p. 53.] 


äirrjKÖev eU tov lBlov aypov, though there is no emphasis, i.e., 
no contrast with kolv6<; or a\X6Tpco<; ; the parallel words in the 
second member are eVl r. iixiropiav avrov' Mt. xxv. 14, iicaXecre 
T0Ü9 ISlov^ Sov\ou<;' Tit. ii. 9, Jo. i. 42. Similarly, ol tStoc av- 
Bpe^ is used for husbands in E. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 P. iii. 1, 5 ; 
where ol ävSp€<;, with or without a personal pronoun, would 
have been sufficient (comp. 1 C. vii. 2).-^ But this usage is on 
the whole rare. Greek writers probably furnish no similar 
example, — for the instances quoted by Schwarz and Weiske" 
are all unsatisfactory, or at most only apparently similar : the 
same may be said of Diod. S. 5. 40. Conversely, cr(/)erepo9 is 
occasionally taken for iSlo<;, see Wessel. Diod. S. II. 9. By the 
Fathers, however, tSio? is certainly sometimes used for a per- 
sonal pronoun; compare Epiphan. Op2^- H- 622 a. 

In by far the greater number of passages there is an anti- 
thesis, open or latent: Jo. x. 3, v. 18, Mt. xxv. 15, A. ii. 6, 
Eom. viii. 32, xi. 24, xiv. 4, 5, 1 Th. ii. 14, H. ix. 12, xiii. 12, 
also Mt. ix. 1. The parallel clauses in 1 C. vii. 2, eVao-ro? rrjv 
eavTOV yvvacKa ep^ero), Kal eKaarr] tov lSlop avSpa e^erco, we 
may render. Let every man Jia^ve his wife, and let every woman 
have her own hicshand : Isocr. Demon, p. 18, aKoireo irpcorov, ttw? 
vTrep T(x)V aiiTOv Sta>Kr](T€v' 6 yap Kaico)<; hiavor)6e\<i virep tü)v 
ISicov K.T.X. In H. vii. 27, Böhme, Kühnöl, and others wrongly 
take lBlo<; for the mere possessive pronoun ; to the tStat afjuapriat, 
are expressly opposed ai roO Xaov (as aWorpLaC) : comp, also 
iv. 10. When I'Sto? has a personal pronoun joined with it, as 
in Tit. i. 12, tSto? avrcov irpo(f>rjT7]<; (Wis. xix. 12), the pro- 
noun merely expresses the notion of belonging to {their 'poet), 
whilst t8i09 gives the antithesis their own poet, — not a foreigner. 
For similar instances see iEschin. Ctesiph. 294 c, Xen. Hell. 
1. 4. 13, Plat. Menex. 247 b : see Lob. p. 441, Wurm, Dinarch. 
p. 70. 

^ Meyer introduces into these passaj^jes an emphasis, whicli either is altogether 
remote (Mt. xxv. 14), or would liave been fully ex})ressed by the pronoun. This 
very use of Toioi for the sak(; of emphasis, wliere there is no trace of an anti- 
thesis, is unknown to Greek writcM-s. [See Ellicott on E, iv. 28, v, 22. It may 
be mentioned that in modern Grctek o 'llio; is e(iuivalent to o auro;, and also to 
etvTos ; and that the ordinary i)Ossessive i)ronouns are formed by joining iu,ov etc. 
to loixof, which is by some derived from 't%os (Mullach, Vulrj. p. 188 sq., 313, J 
Donalds. Or. p. 18 sq. ).] 

^ Schwarz, Comment, p. 687, Weiske, De Pleon. p. 62. 


Kara joined with the accusative of a personal pronoun has been 
regarded us forming a periphrasis for a possessive pronoun : E. i. 15, 
7/ KaÖ' v/xu.'i 7rt(rri9, your Ju'Uk, A. xvii. 28, ot KaÖ' v/xa<: Trotr/rat* 
xviii. 15, vofjLos 6 Ka$' v/xu9* xxvi. 3, al. This view is correct on 
the whole, but the possessive meaning follows very simply from the 
signification of Kara. 'H kolO' v/xu? Tricrrt? is strictly yi'(/6!5 q2ue ad vos 
pertinct, apud vos {in vobis) est: com[). ^^^lian 2. 12, rj Kar avrov 
dpcTYJ' Dion. H. I. 235, ot KaO' rjfjia<s xP^voL. Compare § 30. 3. 
Rem. 5. 

Rem. 1. The genitive of the personal pronouns, especially /xov 
and a-ov (more rarely vfxCjv, rjixCjv, avrov), is very frequently ^ placed 
before the governing noun (and its article), though no special emphasis 
is laid on the pronoun : Mt. ii. 2, vii. 24, viii. 8, xvi. 18, xvii. 15, 
xxiii. 8, Mk. v. 30, ix. 24, Rom. xiv. 16, Ph. ii. 2, iv. 14, Col. ii. 5, 
iv. 18, 1 C. viii. 12, 1 Th. ii. 16, iii. 10, 13, 2 Th. ii. 17, iii. 5, 

1 Tim. iv. 15, 2 Tim. i. 4, Phil. 5, L. vi. 47, xii. 18, xv. 30, xvi. 6, 
xix. 35, al.; Jo. ii. 23, iii. 19, 21, 33, iv. 47, ix. 11, 21, 26, xi. 32, 
xii. 40, xiii. 1, al. ; 1 Jo. iii. 20, Rev. iii. 1, 2, 8, 15, x. 9, xiv. 18, 
xviii. 5, al. So also when the noun has a preposition : Jo. xi. 32, 
€7re(T€v avrov cts tovs TrdSa?. In many passages of this kind, however, 
variants are noted. See on the whole Gersdorf p. 456 sqq. 

The genitive is designedly placed before the noun 

(a) In E. ii. 10, avrov ydp ia-jxev 7roL7]fxa (more emphatic than ia-fxev 
yap TT. avrov), L. xii. 30, xxii. 53. 

(b) In 1 C. ix. 11, fJLeya, et y]ijl€l<; v/xüjv to. aapKLKa Oepta-Ofxev, On 
account of the antithesis ; Ph. iii. 20. 

(c) In Jo. xi. 48, rjp-iüv Kai t6v tottov Kal to Wvo<;, where the 
genitive belongs to two nouns ;^ A. xxi. 11, L. xii. 35, Rev. ii. 19, 

2 C. viii. 4,3 2 Tim. iii. 10, Tit. i. 15, 1 Th. i. 3, ii. 19 (Diod. S. 
11. 16). 

The form e/xov, dependent on a noun and placed after it, appears 
only in such combinations as Trto-rew? vjxC)v tc Kat ifxov Rom. i. 12, 
fxrjTepa avrov Kal ijxov Rom. xvi. 13. 

The insertion of the personal pronoun between the article and the 
noun (as in 2 C. xii. 19, v-n-kp r^s v/aoov oIkoSo/xt}^' xiii. 9, i, 6) occurs 
on the whole but rarely."* Compare, in general, Krüger on Xen. 
Anab. 5. 6. 16. When an attributive precedes the noun, the prefixed 

^ The usual order in the N. T., as elsewhere, is ö -rarrip f^ov, o vlos f/,ou h 
ayari^Tos. The genitive of »vto; also is, as a rule, placed after the noun : see 
however Rost p. 453 (Jelf 652. 3). 

^ AYhere this order was not adopted, the pronoun was necessarily repeated for 
the sake of perspicuity : A. iv. 28, aVa h x,-'t? '^"^ **' ^ /3«fA>j ffov -rpoupKn x.r.X., 
Mt. xii. 47 ; also (from the LXX) L. xviii. 20, A. ii. 17. [The second trod is 
probably not genuine in A. iv. and L. xviii. ] 

^ [This is not an example : see § 30. 7. a.] 

* [A. Buttmann adds: "In Paul only, and with no other pronoun than 



genitive of the personal pronoun has its place between the attributive 
and the noun: 2 C. v. 1, ry eVtyetos rj^dv otKca' 2 C. iv. 16, 6 e^o) 
rjfjLwv avOpo)7ros. 

Eem. 2. In both Greek and Hebrew we sometimes find an appa- 
rently pleonastic use of the dative of the personal pronouns in easy 
and familiar language (dativus ethiais ^). Of this usage, which cer- 
tainly might have been expected to occur in the N. T., Mt. xxi. 5 
(a quotation from the 0. T.), and also Mt. xxi. 2, Kev. ii. 5, 16, H. 
X. 34, have been considered examples. In Mt. xxi. 2, however, 
dyayere fxoi means bring it [them] to me, and dyayere by itself would 
have been incomplete. In Rev. ii. epx^/^at ctol ra^v is / ivill comie 
upon thee (iirl o-e, iii. 3) quickly, — for punishment; compare ver. 14, 
c;(cü Kara crov oAtya, and ver. 16, /xerai/oT^crov. ^ In the last passage, 
e^etv €a-uTots virap^iv means repositam or destinatam sibi habere, — for 
themselves, as belonging to themselves. In Mt. xxi. 5 also aot is not 
without force. 

Rem. 3. It is usual to take y xj/vxv f^^v, crov, etc., as periphrases 
for personal pronouns (Weiske, Pleon. p. 72 sq.), — both in quotations 
from the 0. T. (e.g. Mt. xii. 18, A. ii. 27, H. x. 38), and in the N. T. 
language proper ; and this usage is regarded as being in the first 
instance a Hebraism.^ In no passage of the N. T., however, is xpvxq 
entirely without meaning, any more than t'^1 in the 0. T., — see my 

edition of Simonis. It signifies the soid (the spiritual principle on 
which the influence of Christianity is exerted, 1 P. i. 9) in such 
expressions as iKhairav-qOrjcroixai vTrep twv xpv^iüv v/xwv 2 C. xii. 15, 
i-TTLo-KOTroq rojv ij/vxiov vjxuiv 1 P. ii. 25, H. xiii. 17; — or the heart (the 
seat of the feelings and desires), as Rev. xviii. 14, eVtöv/xiat r-^s i{/vxr]<s 
crov' Mt. xxvi. 38, 7repi\vTr6<i Icttlv y ^v^jq fxov' A. ii. 43, iyivero Trdarj 
ij/vxfj (f>6ßo<i. Nor is if/vxy redundant in Rom. ii. 9 ; it denotes that in 
man which feels the ^Ati/zts and the crrei/oxwpta, even though these may 
affect the body. In liom. xiii. 1, ivacra ^vxy e^oucriat? vTrcpexova-at? 
vTroraa-o-ea-Oo)^ the simple Trdora ij/vxy (compare 1 p. iii. 20) may be 
every soul, i.e. every one; but even in estimates of population "so 
many souls" (in Latin capita) is not precisely identical with ''so 
many men." Compare also A. iii. 23 (from the LXX). Hence the 
use of xpvxy must in every instance be referred to vividness or to 
circumstantiality of language, which is altogether diff"erent from 
pleonasm. It is not at all uncommon to find this use of the word 

^ Buttrn. Gr. 120. 2, and on Dcni. Mlduis p. 9 ; Jacob, Luc. Toxar. p. 138. 
In Gorman the dative is used iu exactly the .same way, as das war dir .schön! 
[See Donalds, p. 495 sq., Jelf 600. 2 ; and as to En<^lish, Latham, Eng. Lang. 
JI. 341, Craik, Engl, of HJtakesj). p. 113 (ed. 3), Clyde, Greek iSi/nt. p. 38, Farrar, 
Gr. Synt. p. 74.] 

^ On the similar phrase i^x.u troi (c.f^. Luc. P'ihc. 16, n\u Ifjuv iK^iKcia-cca-a ttiv 
VtKviv) see Hermann, IjUc. Con-scr. J fist. p. 179. It is a kind of daiimis incovi- 
modi (§ 31. 4. b) : comj). 1 K. xv. 20 (LXX). [In II. x. 34 the best texts have 


•» Gesen. Lg. p. 752 s(i., [If ehr. Gr. p. 202 (L:i<,^st.), Kalisch, Ilehr. Gr. I. 
221], Vorst, JJebr. p. 121 s(]., Kiickert on Koni. xiii. 1. 


in Greek writers (compare Xen. Cijr. 5. 1. 27, JSA'vaw 1. 32), especially 
the poets, e. g. Soph. PhUvd. 7i4, (Ed. Col 4<J9, 1207 -.i it is no 
Hebraism, but an example of anticpie vividness of expression. See 
further Georgi, Vlnd. p. 27 4, Schwarz ad Olear. p. 28, Comment p. 

Section XXIII. 


1. The pronoun ovto<; sometimes refers, not to the noun 
which stands nearest to it, but to one more remote, which is to 
be regarded as the principal subject, and which therefore w\as to 
the writer the necirest 2^si/cJwlo(/icalli/, — was more vividly present 
to his mind than any other : ^ A. iv. 11, ovt6(; ('It^ö-oO? Xptarof; 
in ver. 10, though o ^eo9 is the nearest noun) iartv 6 Xldo^. So 
in 1 Jo. V. 20, ovt6<; io-rcv 6 akrjOivo^ Oeo^;, the pronoun refers to 
6 Oeot; — not Xpcarof; (which immediately precedes), as the older 
theologians maintained on dogmatic grounds ; for, in the first 
place, a\7]6Lv6<; öeo? is a constant and exclusive epithet of the 
Father; and, secondly, there follows a w^arning against idolatry, 
and aX7]dtvo<; Oec^; is always contrasted wdth elhcoXa} 

A. viii. 26, avrr) ecrrlv eprjfjbo<;, is doubtful, some supplying the 
nearest subject Fd^a, others 6S6^. See Klihnöl in loc, and my 

^ In these passages it is not hard to discover tlie notion which is expressed 
by the Latin anima, and I do not know why Ellendt (Lex. Soph. II. 979) takes 
■v^y;^'/? as a mere circumlocution. The passages of Plato quoted by Ast (Lex. 
Plat. III. 575) would really lose their distinctive colouring, if the canon " ora- 
tionem amplificat " were applied to them. 

2 ;Mt. vi. 25, where 4'v;:^^ is contrasted with the a-ufia, can present no difficulty 
to any one who is familiar with the anthropological notions of the Jews. — Nor 
is x.a,pVicc a mere circumlocution in A. xiv. 17, if/.-ri-rXuv rpo^ris kou iuippo<r6vng roc? 
Kaprice? vfjCMv' or in Ja. v. 5, ypi^^ctn rocs Kafhla.? vfjcuv ; for, if SO, it must bo 
possible to say he struck his heart, instead of he struck him, etc. In these 

verses, however, KapVioc, is probably not used (as yp sometimes is) in a merely 

material sense, in accordance with the physiological notions of antiquity, — to 
strengthen the heart, i. e. in the first instance the stomach and by means of this 
the heart (even in Greek the meaning stomach is not entirely effaced in Ku.p'hia.) ; 
but the idea of enjoyment is included. See Baumgarten on the last passage. 

3 Schsef. Dem. V. 322, Stallb. Plat. Phoidr. jjp. 28, 157, Foertsch, Obs. in 
Lysiam^.TL (Jelf 655. 06s. 1.) 

•* [So Alford (who also urges the parallelism with Jo. xvii. 3), Lücke {Bibl. 
Cat. vol. XV. p. 288 sijq. ), Haupt in loc. : on the other side see Ebrard, Comment. 
J). 3to sqq. (Clark), and "Wordsworth in loc.^ 


BWB. I. 395 : I decidedly prefer oho^} There is less diffi- 
culty in A. vii. 19, 2 Jo. 7. For examples from Greek prose 
writers see Ast, Plat. Polit. 417, Legg. p. 77. 

Conversely, in A. iii. 1 3 eKelvo^; is to be referred to the nearest 
subject (Krug. p. 138,^ Jelf 655. 7): so also in Jo. vii. 45, 
where e/celvoc refers to the members of the Sanhedrin, äp'x^iepeU 
KOI (jyapicraiovf;, regarded (as the single article shows) as forming 
one body. For an example of ovro^ and eKelvo^ so combined 
that the former belongs to the more distant and the latter to 
the nearer subject, see Plutarch, Vit. Demostli. 3 ; and for 
examples of ifcelvo^; where there is only one subject, and where 
we might have expected ovro^ or simply aiirof;, see 2 C. viii. 9, 
Tit. iii. 7.' 

In Ph. i. 18, Kol iv TovTio xatpw, the demonstrative simply refers to 
the main thought Xptcrros KarayyeXAerat : in 2 P. i. 4, Slol Tovnov refers 

to eTrayyeA-yaara. 

The relative also is supposed sometimes to refer to a remote subject 
(compare Bernh. p. 297).^ Thus in 1 C. i. 8 (see Pott in loc.) it has 
been maintained that os relates to öed? in ver. 4, as the principal 
subject, though 'Iryor. Xpia-r. immediately precedes. This however is 
not necessary, either on account of tov Kvplov yj/xCjv 'Irja-ov Xp. at the 
end of this verse (compare Col. ii. 11, E. iv. 12), or on account of 
TTio-To? 6 $e6<s which inj mediately follows ; for that which is here 
ascribed to God, the calling eh Koivmnav "I. Xp., is at the same time 
a calling to the ßeßaiova-Bai through Christ, which [ß^ßatova-Oat) in- 
deed can only be effected in the fellowship of Christ. This canon 
has been applied to H. ix. 4 (see Kühnöl in loc), to evade antiquarian 
difficulties, and to Eom. v. 12 (ec^' w) on dogmatic grounds; in both 
instances quite erroneously. There is no difficulty in H. v. 7 and 
2 Th. ii. 9. In 2 P. iii. 12 hi rjv may very well be referred to the 
nearest word rjpepa^ ; in 1 P. iv. 1 1 w points back to the principal 
subject 6 ÖC09. Of H. iii. 6 (ov oIkos) recent expositors have taken 
the correct view.^ 

2. Where no special emphasis is intended, the demonstrative 
pronoun which precedes a relative sentence is usually included 

1 [See Meyer and Alford in loc, Smith, Did. ofB. I. 6,57, Kitto, Cycl. II. 77, 
Gre.swell, Diss. I. 177 sqij., Robinson, Blbl. lies. II. 514, in support of this view. ] 

2 Bremi, Lys. p. 154, Sclioein. Plut. A(j%h p. 73, Focrtseh /. c. 

^ [On the (jucstion whether a-lroi and iKilvoi can be used in the same passage 
witli reference to llw. same suhjcct, see Kllicott and Alford on 2 Tim, ii. 2(5, 
Kiddell, Plat. Apol. ]). 135.] 

* G(>ller, Thuc. II. 21, Siebelis, Pmisan. III. 52, Schocm. ha'us\). 242 sq., 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 369 ; and as to Latin, Kritz, Sail list II. 115. 

' [Of recent wiiters, HIcck, Dc Wcttc, Kl)rard rcler al-rov and oZ to Xpia-To; ; 
Llinemann, Delitz.sch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others, toCfW.J 


in the relative pronoun (Kriig. p. 145 sq., Jelf 817): — not 

{a) Where, in accordance with the laws of government or of 
attraction, the demonstrative would have been in the same case 
as the relative ; as 

(a) A. i. 24, dvdSei^ov ou efcXefo) (for tovtov ov), Eom. viii. 
29, Jo. xviii. 26, avyyevrjf; cjv ov aTTeicoy^ev Tlerpof; to oinov 

1 C. vii. 39, 2 C. xi. 12, Th. iv. 11 ; 

(/3) A. viii. 24, ott«? firjSev iireXdrj iir ifie wv elpr^Kare (for 
TovTcov a elp.), xxi. 19, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16, 22, L. ix. 36, Eom. 
XV. 18, E. iii. 20, 1 C. [2 C] xii. 17 ; compare Is. ii. 8, Wis. 
xii. 14, Tob. i. 8, xii. 2, 6, Plat. Gorij. 457 e, Phwd. 94 c, Isocr. 
Phil. p. 226, Dc Face 388, Pint. Virt. Mid. p. 202, Xen. An. 1. 
9. 25, Demosth. Ep. 5. in., Olynth. I. p. 2, al., and EUendt, Lex. 
Soph. II. 368:— but also. 

(jb) Where the case of the demonstrative would have been 
different, as in Jo. xiii. 29, dyopaaov wv X/oetai^ eyo^xev (for Tavra 
Mv), Eom. vi. 16, Mt. xix. 11, A. viii. 19, xiii. 37, 1 C. xv. 36, 

2 P. i. 9 ; compare Xen. Ci/r. 6. 2. 1, aTTT^yyeiXaf; wv iSiov 
Eurip. 3Ied. 735, e/jLfiiveLV a gov kXvco (i.e. tovtol^ a, see 
Elmsley in loc), Lysias p. 152 (Steph.), yxr/ KaTayLyvcoaKere 
ahiKiav Tov . . . Ba7ravü)VT0<; aXX' oaoc . . . eWcafxevoL euaiv 
ävaXlcTKeiv (for tovtwv oaot) : see Stallb. Plat. lap. 1. 139, 
and compare Kritz, Sallust II. 301. In this case even the 
preposition on which the case of the demonstrative depends is 
omitted : Eom. x. 1 4, ttw? TriarevaovaLV ov ovk rjKovcrav that 

is, 669 TOVTOV ov K.T.X.^ 

If a preposition precedes a relative before which the demon- 
strative is suppressed, this preposition logically belongs either 

a. To the relative clause : Eom. x. 14, ttw? eVt/caXeo-oi'Ta.t ei9 
ov OVK €7ricrT€vaav vi. 2 1 , TLva Kapirov el'p^ere TOTe (that is, tov- 
Twv) e</)' oh vvv e'iTaL<j-)(yv^a6e' xiv. 21, Jo. xix. 37 (from the 

^ Similar to this would be 1 Tim. ii. 10, «AX' o T^ith ywai^tv iTecyyiXXof/.tvai; 

öioffißuav, if (with Matthies) we resolved o Tfi-yrn into h tovtm o -rpiTu. But it 
is simpler and easier to join ^/' 'ipyuv with xo<r/u.i7v, ver. 9. The former meaning 
would have been more distinctly expressed by Iv Z vfi-ru. 

^ Reiche evidently goes too far when he says that, in all other examples, it is 
only the demonstrative which would have been governed by the verb that is 
omitted, and never one governed by a noun (compare Jo. xviii. 26, L. xxiii. 41) : 
even if the remark were true, it would not set aside the above explanation, see 
Fritzsche. — Perhaps also we might give to e^' ol; the meaning which is discussed 


LXX), L. Y. 25, 2 P. ii. 12 ;' Soph. Phü. 957, Aristot. Bhet 
2. 1. 7, Demon, p. 2 : — or 

h. To the demonstrative understood: Jo. vi. 29, 'Iva inaTev- 
(T7)Te et? ov airecTTeiKev eKelvo^;' xvii. 9,Eom. xiv. 22, 2 C. v. 10, 
xii. 6, G. i. 8 sq., H. v. 8 (Num. vi. 21). In H. ii. 18 also, ev c5 
ireiTovOev avTO<; ireipaaOei^, Svparai Tot<; Treipa^o/uLepot^; ßo7)6r}aai, 
should probably be resolved into ev tovtw o TreirovOev .... 
Svvarac . . . ßoTjOrjaaL Compare Xen. 3fem. 2. 6. 34, iyyl- 
yverac evvota 7rpo<; ou? av viroXcißco 6vvoIkm<^ ^X^^^ tt/^o? i/xi. 
Anal). 1. 9. 25, Hell. 4. 8. 33, Demosth. Con. p. 729 a, Olynth. I. 
p. 2, Uj). 4. p. 118 b, Plat. Hep. 2. 375 d, Fhced. 61c, Arrian, 
Alex. 6. 4. 3, Diog. L. 9. 67, 6. 74 :— or 

c. To both clauses : 2 C. ii. 3, tva fjurj Xvtttjv e^co a0' mv e8et 
/Lte ')(aLpeLv' 1 C. vii. 39, x. 30, Jo. xi. 6, Eom. xvi. 2 ; compare 
Isocr. Evag. p. 470, ifkelov^^ ev tovtol^ toU T67rot,<; Bcarplßecv, 
7] Trap* oh TTporepov elcoöore^ ycrav (Cic. Agrar. 2. 27). 
1 C. vii. 1 and Ph. iv. 1 1 may be thus explained.'^ 

In the same way, relative adverbs include the demonstrative : 
Jo. xi. 32, rjXOev oirov rjv 6 ^Irjaovf; (i.e. eKelcre ottov), vi. 62, 
Mk. V. 40, ehiropeveTai ottov rjv to iraihlov (compare Buttm. 
Philoct. p. 107), 1 C. xvi. 6,Mt. xxv. 24, cruvdycov 66ev ov SceaKop- 
TTio-a? (for eKeWev ottov) ; compare Thuc. 1. 89. Still freer is 
the construction in Jo. xx. 19, twv dvpcov KeKkeicr fievcov ottov 
rjaav ol fiaOrjraL k.t.X. — That in condensed sentences of this kind 
(in which the Greek did not really supply a demonstrative in 
thought, see Krug. p. 145) no comma should be inserted before 
the relative, has been already remarked : such punctuation 
would make Jo. vi. 29 quite meaningless. 

3. In emphatic passages the demonstrative may be frequently 
repeated in connected sentences: A. vii. 35 sqq., tovtov tov 
Mü)vo"f]v . . . . TOVTOV 6 Oeo<; uTTeaTokKev . . . . ovto<^ €^)'j<yayev 
. . . . ovTo<; eoTLv o Mwvarjf; 6 etVa? .... ovt6<; eaTLV 6 
yevofjuevo^ ev Trj eK/cXrjaia k.t.X. ; and in a different spirit Jo. vi. 

ty \Vel)(,*r, Dem. p. 492 [viz. as representing It) rovrot;, lip' oJV, in the things in 
which (Dem. Arintocr. p. 684, Phil. 3. p. 119, al.).] 

1 'A.yvo'c7v iv, ]*orj)hyr. Abut. 2. 53. Some would bring in here Kom. vii. 6, 
sup[)lying Ik'/ivm (vo^tM) l)efore U ^ ; but h <J ])oints back to «to toZ vof/.ov, and 
u,9ro6a.v. is annexed absolutely to xarr^py., as a designation of manner : see l'hilipj)i. 

^ [See .Jclf 822. Obs. 3 sq., Don. p. 3G3 ; and on the attraction of adverbs Jelt" 
822. Obs. lO.j 


42 [T^t'c], ov^ ovr6<; iariv Iijaov^; o vlo<; layatjcf) .... ttoj? 
ovv Xeyei ovro<; k.t.X.^ Amoiifrst other passages, Bornemaiiii 
quotes as parallel Xeu. Mem. 4. 2. 28, Kal ol' re d7roTvyx(ivovT6<; 
T(ji}v Trpay/JLuTcou iiriOvfjioxjat rovTov<i virep avrdv ßouXeuecrdaL, 
Kal TrpoLCTTaaOal re eavrdv tovtov<;, Kal Ta<^ iXinha's Toyv 
ayaOcöv iv rovTOt<; €')(ovcn Kal hia iravra ravra ttuvtcov fidXi- 
ara tovtov<; dyaiTMcnv. In Latin, compare Cic. Vcrr. 3. 9. 
23 : hunc in omnibus stupris, hunc in fenorum expilationibus, 
hunc in impuris conviviis principem adhibebat (Verres). Witli 
a relative adjective this anaphora occurs in Ph. iv^ 8, ocra 
iarlv oXtjOP], oaa acfivd, ocra SiKaia, 6a a dyvd, 6 a a irpo^- 
(f>L\ri, oaa ev^r)fia. Compare further § 65. 5. 

4. Another use of these pronouns is far more common. 
When the subject of a sentence or the predicate placed early in 
the sentence consists of several words, we find ovro^ or eKelvo^ 
introduced immediately before (more rarely after) the verb, that 
the subject or predicate may stand out more clearly or with 
greater prominence : Mt. xxiv. 13,6 v7T0fjLeiva<^ et? xeXo?, ovto<^ 
acodtjaerar Jo. i. 18, o fjbovoyevq^ vio<i o o)v et? tov koXttov rou 
7raTp6<i, eKelvos e^Tjyjjaaro' Mk. vii. 15, rd iKiropevofieva dir 
avTov, eKelvd ean rd Koivovvra tov dvOpcoTrov vii, 20, xii. 40, 
1 C. vi. 4, Tov^ i^ov9evr]pbevov<; ev rrj iKKXyala, rovrov^i KaOl^ere' 
Eom. vii. 10, 15 sq., 19 sq., ix. 6, 8, xiv. 14, Jo. v. 11, xii. 48, 
Ph. i. 22, al. Compare Thuc. 4. 69, Xen. Conv. 8. 33, Ages. 4. 
4, Plat. Protag. p. 339 d, Isocr. Uvag. c. 23, Paus. 1. 24. 5, 
Lucian, Fug. 3, ^1. 12. 19, al." Of the use of 8e to add 
strength to this emphasis ^ no example is found in the N. T. ; 
nor is there any trace here of the anacoluthon which is not 
uncommon in Greek writers in such cases,'^ — unless we bring 
under this head the attraction in 1 P. ii. 7. 

Still more frequently are these pronouns so used after an 
antecedent clause beginning with a conjunction or a relative : 

^ See Bornemann, Bibl. Stud, der sacks. Geistl. I. 66 sq. 

^ See Schsef. Melet. p. 84, Jacob, Luc. Toxar. pp. 78, 144, and Luc. Alex. p. 7, 
Siebelis, Pausan. L 63, Weber, Dem. p. 158. As to Latin see Kritz, Sallust I. 
171. [Jelf 658. 1. On the frequency with which St. John thus uses Iküvo? see 
Alford on Jo. vii. 29 : in classical Greek oZm is more common.] 

^ Buttm. Deniosth. Mid. p. 152, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 252, [Jelf 770, 
1. a; compare Don. p. 577. Some regard 2 P. ii. 20 as an example of this 
kind, but see Alford in loc : I'l is similarly used in A. xi. 17 Rec, see § 53. 
7. ft]. 

* Schwarz, De discijndo): Chr. soloecism. p. 77. 


Jo. ix. 31, edv Tt? deoaeßrjf; y koI to Oekruia avrov iroifj tovtov 
uKovet' Ja. i. 23, Mt. v. 19,xii. 50, Ph. iii. 7, iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 2. 

We have a remarkable repetition of the demonstrative in L. xix. 2, 
Kttt avT09 rjv ap^LT€X(ji)vr]<; kol ovtoi; -qv ttXovo-los ', the meaning is, 
He was a chief publican and indeed (as such) a rich man, — isque 
dives fuit (Matth. 470. 6, Jelf 655. 6. Ohs. 2). Lachmann reads 
(with B) KoX avros (^i^) TrAovVtos ; but this reading has less to recom- 
mend it.i Compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 3. 48. 

It is a different case when in a lengthened sentence the substantive 
is taken up again by a pronoun, for the sake of clearness : 2 C. xii. 2, 
otSa dvOpoiTTOV iv X/okttü) . . . 7rp6 crcov SeKaTeacrdpoiV . . . etre iv 
(TwjJiaTL . . . dpTrayivra tov tolovtov k.t.X. (Plat. Bep. 3. 398, Xen. 
Cyr. 1. 3. 15), 1 C. v. 3, 5, A. i. 21 sq. : compare § 22. 4. 

5. Before otl, tva, and similar particles, a demonstrative pro- 
noun is often inserted (particularly in Paul and John) when 
the clause w^hich follows is to receive special prominence. See 

1 Tim. i. 9, et'Sw? tovto, otl k.t.X., A. xxiv. 14, ofioXoyco tovto aot, 
OTL K.T.X., Eom. vi. 6,' 1 C. i. 12, xv, 50, 2 C. v. 15, x. 7, 11, 

2 Th. iii. 10, Ph. i. 6, 25, Jo. xvii. 3, 2 P. i. 20, 1 Jo. i. 5, iii. 
11, 23, iv. 9, 10, V. 3, 11, 14, 2 Jo. 6 ; compare Plat. Soph. 
234 b. So 6t9 TOVTO before ha, A. ix. 21, Bom. xiv. 9, 2 C. ii. 
9, E. vi. 22, IP. iii. 9, 1 Jo. iii. 8 ; ev tovtcd otl, 1 Jo. iv. 13 ; 
€v TOVTO) Xva, Jo. XV. 8,^ 1 Jo. iv. 17 (see Lücke in loc.) ; iv 
TOVTO) edv, 1 Jo. ii. 3 ; ev tovtw otuv, 1 Jo. v. 2. Compare 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 461, Franke, Deynosth. p. 40 (Jelf 657). 

The demonstrative is also introduced for the sake of emphasis 
when an infinitive* or a noun follows as predicate. 2 C. ii. 1, 
eKpcva €/JLavTa> tovto, to /jltj irdXiv ev Xvrrr) Trpo<; v/iä<; eXdelv 
vii. 11, avTo tovto to KaTa Qeov XvTrijdrjvat' 1 C. vii. 37, 
E. iv. 17, Ja. i. 27 : compare Xen. Hell. 4. 1. 2, Ages. 1. 8, 
Plat. Hipp. Maj. 302 a, Gorg. 491 d, Isocr. Evag. c. 3, Por- 
phyr. Ahstin. 1. 13, Dion. H. VI. 667, de Thuc. 40. 3, Epict. 
Enchir. 31. 1, 4, Stallb. Plat. Hep. IL 261. 2 C. xiii. 9, tovto 
Kal euyßixeöa, ttjv vfjucov KaTdpTtatv 1 Jo. iii. 24, v. 4 : compare 
Achill. Tat. 7. 2, (f)dp/JbaKov avTOt tovto t^? . . . Xinrr]'; rj tt^o? 

^ [Recent editors either read avrog or omit tlie pronoun.] 

^ in Rom. ii. 3 an extended vocative is inserted between tovto and tlie clause 
beginning with on. 

^ [Here the connexion of U tovtv with Vva may Avell be doubted. "The 
pronoun looks back, while at the same time the tiiought already indicated is 
developed in the words which follow : " Westcott hi loc.\ 

* Matth. Eurip. Phun. 520, Spracld. 472. 2. 


aWov et? TO iraOelv Koivwvia' Plat. R<p. 3. 407 a, Luciaii, 
Navig. 3, Eurip. Su2ipL 510, and also Jacob, Luc. Toxar. p. 
136, Ast, Plat, rolit. p. 400. Even ei9 toOto is so used in A. 
xxvi. 10, 6i9 TOVTO <yap M(p67]u aoc Trpo-^eLpiaaaOai ae virrjperyv 
KoX fidpTvpa /c.T.X. ; oi/ro)? in 1 P. ii. 15 (1 C. iv. 1); and 
ivrevdev in Ja. iv. 1. 

Lastly, the demonstrative is thus placed before a participial 
clause in ]\Ik. xii. 24, ov hia tovto irXavaaOe, firj etSore? ra? 
ypacfxi^ k.t.X., on account of this . . . because ye knoio not, etc. : 
comp. Antiphon 0. 40, ovk aTreypdcfyQUTO rovrov avrov eveKa, ovx 
r)yov/JL€voi fie diroKrelvaL k.tX} (Jelf 657.) 

The use of the demonstrative pronoun in such phrases as ov /xera 
TToAAas ravTas rj^ipa% after {ill) a few days (A. i. 5), presents no 
difficulty. It is not based (as is still maintained by Kühnöl) upon a 
transposition of ttoAv's, but is to be explained in the same way as the 
Latin phrase " ante hos quinque dies : " in Greek compare Achill. 
Tat. 7. 14, WS oAtywv irpb TOVTiov rj/xepiov- HeUod. 2. 22, 97, ov 7rp6 
TToXXwv TüJi/Se fjix^puiv. Avrat rfjxipai are these days just now past, and 
*' ante hos qunique dies " properly means before the five days just ])ast 
— reckoned back from the present time. Thus the pronoun connects 
the note of time with the present. '^ 

The demonstrative in Ja. iv. 13, Tzopeva-w/xeOa ets rrjvSe rrjv ttoXlv, 
into this and tJmt town, the commentators and lexicographers are 
able to illustrate only by reference to the familiar expression 6 8ctva ; 
but oSe is used by Greek Avriters in exactly the same way, e. g. 
Plutarch, Symp. 1. 6. 1, TrjvSe ttjv rjp^^pav, this and tJmt day.^ 

The plural of the demonstrative pronoun, ravra, is not unfrequently 
used in Greek in reference to a single object, and thus, strictly 
speaking, stands for tovto : Plat. Apol. 19 d, Phadr. 70 d, Xen. Cyr. 
5. 3. 19.'* We find examples of this in 3 Jo, 4 (where some MSS. 
have the correction ravTr^s, — see Lücke in loc.) and Jo. i. 51 ; but 
certainly not in Jo. xix. 36, see Van Hengel, Annotat. p. 85 sq. In 
L. xii. 4 fx€Ta Tavra is afterwards, this formula having become simply 

* See Maetzner, Antiph. p. 219, Schoem, Iscbus p. 370. 

2 [On the position of oh see Jelf 738- 2. Ohs. 3 {not after many, but after few : 
Meyer) ; and on that of ravTo.?, Jelf 453. Ohs. 2, Don, p. 352.] 

^ [It is not easy to see why t»;^^^ sliould not have its full force ** as implying 
an object in immediate prospect ; we will travel to this city here " (Green p. 125) : 
see also Alford in loc. , A. Buttm. p. 103, and compare Grant, Aristot, Ethics, I. 
372. The passage from Plutarch admits of a similar explanation.] 

* See Schaef. JJion. p. 80 ; comp, also Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 524, Stallb. Plat. 
Apol p. 19 d, Maetzner, Antiphon^. 153. Fritzsche (Quast. Luciaii. i^. 126) 
thus qualifies this observation : plur. poni de una re tantummodo sic, si neque 
ulla emergat ambiguitas et aut universe, non definite quis loquatur, aut una res 
plurium vi sit prsedita. [See Riddell, Plat. Ajjol. p. 131 sq., Jelf 381. Obs. 1.] 


adverbial. Nearly the same is to be said of the familiar phrase koI 
Tavra idque, H. xi. 12. Oil 1 C. ix. 15 ^ see Meyer. - 

In 1 C. vi. 11, Kol Tavrd rti/e? ^re, Tavra may be used with an 
implication of contempt, of such a sort, talis farincv homines (Beruh, 
p. 281, Stallb. Plat. liival. p. 274). Yet this was perhaps remote 
from the Apostle's thought, and ravra is often used with reference 
to a series of predicates, of such a descrii)tion, ex hoc genere fuistis. 
Kypke and Pott in loc. have confounded usages which are quite dis- 

In 1 Jo. V. 20 Lücke ^ thinks there is a prozeugma of the demon- 
strative pronoun, ovt6<s Icttlv 6 a.Xiq6ivo<; Oeos, Kttt (avTYj) t,m-r-j atwvtos : 
this is not impossible in itself, but, as I think, it is unnecessar}^ 

Rem. As regards the position of ovros and cKeti/os, it should be 
remarked that the former, from the nature of the case, usually stands 
before, the latter after the noun, — ovTo<i 6 av6poi7To<5, 6 avöpooTros cKetj/o?. 
We find however the opposite order : in the case of ovto<s (Mt. xxviii. 
15 6 Aoyos ovTos, L. i. 29, al.) without any substantial difference of 
meaning; in the case of eKetvo? (L. xii. 47, H. iv. 11) especially in 
the connective formulas iv e/cetVats rats rjfXipacs, iv iKecvr) Tjj rjjjiepa 
or wpa, iv iKCLviü rw Kutpw (Gersdorf p. 433). But it must not be 
sup2)osed that any writer has so bound himself to one particular 
arrangement that we are justified in altering the other when it is 
supported by good MSS. or by the sense of the passage.* 

Section XXIV. 


1. According to the law of attraction/ the relative pronoun 
09 (never 09x^9 ^ in the JST. T.), when required by the governing 

^ [Meyer refers Tovruv to the i^oixrix, the phiral having reference to the various 
jorras of this power : so also Alford.J 

^ In the same way, lip' a7j and «^^' uv are used in Greek where the singular 
would be sudieient (Fritz. Rom. I. 299). 

•^ Compare also Studien und Kritik. II. p. 147 sqq. 

^ [Tlie deiMonstrative pronouns in -li are very s(;hlom used in the N. T. In 
the best texts oli occurs 10 times (7 times in Rev. ii. and iii.), and roto^^i once : 
in most instances oh. has its usual reference to what folio ws (Jelf G55. 6).] 

* See Herrn. Vhj. ]>. 891 s([q., Beruh, p. 299 sqq. Compare also G. T. A. 
Kriiger's thorough examination of tiie subject (with immediate reference to 
Latin) in his UntcrHuch. a. d. Gahie.tedar lat. 8])racld<'.hr(', (3 Hefte : Braunschw. 
1827). K. \V. Krüger prefers the term assimilation {Sprachl. p. 141). [Jelf 
822, Don. p. 362, Green p. 120 sq<[.] 

^"Osns occurs in the N. T. in no other case than tlie nominative, [the neuter 
accusative, and the contracted genitive, — the last only in ims otov (p. 75).] 


verb to stand in the accusative, is so attracted by the oblique 
case (the genitive or dative) of the preceding noun with which 
it is logically connected (as secondary clause with principal) 
that it itself assumes this case. This peculiarity, which gives 
to the sentences a closer internal connexion and a certain 
roundness, was quite familiar to the LXX, and is of regular 
occurrence in the N. T. (tliough variants are sometimes found) : 
L. ii. 20, eVi iraaiv oh yKOvaav Jo. ii. 22 (iv. 50), iiriarevaau 
tg5 Xoyco a> elirev A. iii. 21, 25, vii. 17, x. 39,xvii. 31, xx. 38, 
xxii. 10, Ja. ii. 5, 1 P. iv. 11, Jo. vii. 31, 39, xv. 20, xvii. 5, 
Mk. vii. 13, L. v. 9, xix. 37, Mt. xvui. 19, 1 C. vi. 19, 2 C. x. 
13, xii. 21, 2 Th. i. 4, Tit. iii. 6, H. vi. 10 (ix. 20), x. 1,^E. i. 
8, ii. 10, Eev. xviii. 6, al. Here the comma before the relative 
is in every case to be struck out ; see § 7. 1. Jude 15, irepi 
irdvTcov iwv epycov aaeßeLa<^ avTcou (Lv ?}cre^??crai/, deserves special 
notice : see § 32. 1. 

There are passages however in which this usage is neglected, 
as H. viii. 2, t?}9 o-Krjvrj*; Trj<; akr^Oivy)^, rjv eirrj^ev o KvpLO<;' and 
according to good MSS. Mk. xiii. 9, Jo. vii. 39, iv. 50, Tit. iii. 
5 : ^ compare also the variants in Jo. xvii. 11, H. vi. 10, A. 
vii. 16, Eev. i. 20. Similar instances are frequently met with 
in the LXX and the Apocrypha : ^ for examples from Greek 
writers see Bornem. Xen. An. p. 30, Weber, Dem. p. 543,Krüg. 
p. 142 (Jelf 822. Ohs. 9). 

Some passages appear to go beyond tlie rule as laid down above : 
thus in E. i. 6, rijs yo.piro<i ■^9 ixo-ptTwaev (v.l. iv ^), iv. 1, rrjs KÄrjcreo)? 
^5 iKXrjOrjTe' 2 C. i. 4, 8ta rrjs TrapaKXrjcreo}<s rjs TrapaKoAov/xe^a,* the 
genitive ^s seems to stand for the dative rj. But all these passages 
may be explained by reference to the well-known phrases kXtjo-lv 
KoAetv, 7j-apdK\r)(TLv TrapaKaXelv, X'^P'-^ ;)(aptTOvi/, ayairrjv dyaTrav (§ 32. 1), 
and to the equally familiar construction of the passive.^ In A. xxiv^ 
21 also, 4nDV7]^ rj? €Kpaia kcrroi^ k.t.X, ^^ probably is not put for ^ 
(cfxDvfj Kpd^eiv, Mt. xxvii. 50, Mk. i. 26, Kev. vi. 10, al.) :*^ cfnovq is 

1 [Jo. ii. 22, iv. 50, H. x. 1, are doubtful.] 

'^ [Mk. xiii. 9 should be xiii. 19 (as in ed. 6) : on Tit. iii. 5 see Ellicott.] 

3 Wahl, Clav. p. 360. 

* Here however we might (with Wahl) consider the genitive to be governed 
by the omitted preposition lia. : see § 50. 7 (Jelf 650. 3). 

s See Gieseler in Rosenm. Repertor. II. 124 : Aristoph. Pint. 1044, T«?.a/v' 
\yu T?,; vßpieos vis vßpt^o//.a,t, is probably to be explained in the same way. 

^ Compare Boissou. Nicet. p. 33. 


used in the sense of cry, exclamation (loud utterance), so that the 
construction resolves itself into 4>(jivr)v Kpa^eiv (Rev. vi. 10 «^. /.), — an 
unusual, but not an inadmissible expression : compare Is. vi. 4, 
(fxiyvrj-i 7]S iKeKpayov. — In E. i. 8, r]<i livepicrcrivcrev^ the verb is to be 
taken transitively, as is shown hy yvwpto-a?, ver. 9. 

That hoA\' ever attraction mcLij affect the dative of the relative, so as 
to change it into a genitive, is shown by G. Krüger I.e. p. 274 sq. : ^ 
thus in 1 Tim. iv. 6, A has r»}? KaX-J}? StSao-KaAias rj<i TraprjKoXovOrjKa^. 
In Kom. iv. 17 also many commentators (and recently Fritzsche) 
resolve Karivavn ov eTTLcrrcva-ev Oeov into KarivavTi ßeov (2 £7ri(rTet>o-ev,^ 
but this explanation is not necessary : see below, no. 2.^ On the 
other hand, Mt. xxiv. 38, yaav . . . yayaovj^res koI eK-ya/vCt^ovre? o-xpt 
^s rjfxepa^ elsrjkOe Noie ets t'^v KtßoiTov, is probably a condensation of 
axpi TTJs rjjx. rj elsrjXOev ; similarly in L. i, 20, A. i. 2, 22.* We find 
the same attraction of the dative of the relative (without a conden- 
sation of the two clauses into one) in Lev. xxiii. 15, oltto Trj<s T7/xepas 
17? av 7rpo<i€V€yKY]r€' Bar. i. 19 : the phrase rjs r}fji€pa<i, it is true, is 
also used {on which day), but in the LXX the dative of time pre- 

2. We sometimes meet with instances of an inverse attrac- 
tion, the noun to which the relative refers being attracted into 
the construction of the relative clause, and assuming the case in 
which the governing verb requires the relative to stand (Jelf 
824, Don. p. 364). When this occurs, either 

a. The noun precedes the relative clause: 1 C. x. 16, tov 
aprov ov K'Koo/uLev, ov')(l KOivwvia tov dwiiaTo^ ; Mt. xxi. 42 (from 
the LXX), \i6ov op dTreSoKi/jLaaav 01 oLKoSo/jLovvre^i, ovto^ iye- 
vTjOrj (IP. ii. 7) ;^ L. xii. 48, iravTi w iSodr} iroXv, iroXv ^rjTrj- 

1 Comp. Heiniclien, Euseb. II. 98 sq. [Jelf 822. Ohs. 8, Madvig 103, Kiiig. 
p. 142.] 

2 [So also Tholuck, A. Buttm. (p. 287), Jowett, Vaiighan, Webster and 
Wilkinson. Meyer and Altbrd agree with Winer : see also Ellicott on E. i. 8. 
On A. xxvi. 16 see § 39, 3. Kern. 1. In 2 Th. i. 4, «]? «vi;^£(r^£, some consider 
als to stand for vv, as in the N. T. uAxiff^cct governs the genitive in every other 
instance. Such an attraction as this, liowever, would be unexampled : see Jelf 
822. Obs. 8, and P^llicott in loc. — From the LXX, Thiersch quotes Gen. xxiv. 7 
as an example of ^V for ^ {De Pent. Al. p. 105).] 

^ Compare Schmid in the Tühiwj. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1831. II. 137 sqq. 

■• ["A^pi rn -h//-. (comj). «;%;^i-j ov, 'iui ov, 'iu? orov) occurs Mt. xxiv. 38, L. i. 20, 
xvii. 27, A. i. 2 : ä<p' y,s Ä/*. (co)np. u,(p' ov), Col. i. 6, 9 ; «.(p" vis (seil. vju.ipxs or 
älpas, see § G4. .0), L. vii. 45, 2 P. iii. 4 ; in A. xxiv. 11, *i//.ipxs may be supplied 
from the preceding yi/u.ipa.i. In A. xx. 18, u(p' ns is most simply ex}»laincd in the 
same way : Jelf (822. Oha. 5) considers this an example of the repetition of the 
prepos. which belongs to the fintecedent (I'huc. 3. 64). With these examples 
compare Dem. JJe Cor. 233. 27, oIk u<p' rts ufjuoactri fi/uipus, äxx' a.<p' vis tiX-ritretTi 
K.T.k., Xen. An. 5. 10. 12, hf^-'ipa. 'ixrri «^' »öj r,pifin. In A. i. 22, 'ius tvs ^f^. '^iS, 
Meyer explains «j as a genitive ol' timc!. See Madvig L c. J 

^ [In 1 r. ii. 7, ÄiVöj is probably the true reading. J 


dijaeraL irap' avTov : probably also L. i. 72, 73, /jLurjadPjvac Bia- 
0/}Kj]<; dyia<; avTov, opKov ov cdfioae 7rpo<i ^Aßpadji' but pro- 
bably not A. X. 36, see below § 62. 3.^ — Or 

h. In position, as in construction, the noun is completely 
incorporated with the relative clause : Mk. vi. 16, oi/ e7a> direKe- 
(jxiXicra 'Icodvvrjv, outJ? iaTC Phil. 10, L. xix. 37. Kom. vi. 17, 
vTTTjKovaaTe et? ov TrapeSodrjre tvttov BLSa^rj^;, is an example of 
this kind, — whether it be resolved into et<? rov tvttov SiSa-^Pi<i ov 
irapeSoOrjTe, an accusative with a passive, for '6<i TrapeSoOrj vfuv 
(for a similar attraction, by which the accusative of the more 
remote object is affected, see Demosth. Mid. 385 c, BUr^v äfia 
ßovXofJuevoL Xaßecv, mv eVt tcov äWcov eTeOeavTo Opaavv ovTa' 
where a)v is for a, i.e. iv oh, as a complement of 6paaxjv ovTa, — 
and Dion. Hal. 9. 565, äyavdiCT7]cn<^ v/jl(ov TVepl a)v vßpl^eade vtto 
Toiv TToXefjbLcov Demosth. Uj}. 4. p. 118 b) ; — or more simply (as 
by Bornemann, Eückert, Fritzsche, al.) into vTrrjKovcraTe (tS) 
TV7ra>SLoa^y]<; el<; ov irapeSoOrjTe, since the construction virafcovetv 
Ttvi'^ is the only one that is suitable here. Even A. xxi. 16, 
äyovTe<; Trap' g5 ^evLaOco/nev Mvd<Tcovi, is explained by some as 
an example of attraction, — äyovT6<; Trapd Mvdcrcova .... Trap' 
w ^eviaßcofiev ; but see § 31. 5. On 2 C. x. 13 see § 59. 7. 

Examples parallel to (a) : Hippocr. J/crJ. 4. 11, tol^; Trrjyaq 
a? oDVo/jLaaa, avTat, tm crdifjuaTi k.t.X., Lysias, Bon. Arist. p. 649, 
^lian, A7iim. 3. 13, Her. 2. 106, Soph. Ul. 653, Track. 283, 
Eurip. Bacck 443 sqq., Aristoph. Flict. 200, Alciphr. 3. 59 : 
the well-known passage in the uEneid (1. 577), urbem quam 
statuo vestra est; Terent. Eunuch. 4. 3. 11, Sen. Ep. 53. See 
Wetstein I. 468. From the LXX may be quoted Gen. xxxi. 
16, TTjv ho^av rjv d^elXeTo 6 6eo<^ .... r]fUv eaTau' and Num. 
xix. 22 : from the Acta Petri et Pauli (Thilo, Cod. Ap. I. 7), 
dpK6L rjfjLLV T7]v dXiyjrcv rjv €^o/j,ev Trapd TIeTpov. (Jelf 824. I.) 

To (h) : Xen. An. 1. 9. 19, et Teva opcmj /caTacrKevd^ovTa rj<; 
^PX^^ %^pöt9 (%aj/9az^ 7^9 äp'x^oi), Soph. (Ed. Col. 907, El. 1029, 
Eurip. Orest. 63, Electr. 860, Hec. 986, Plat. Tim. 49 e, De- 
mosth. Ep. 4. p. 118 c, Plut. Coriol. 9 {Evang. Apocr. p. 414, 

' Comp. Gieseler l. c. p. 126, Krug. 224 sq. 

'■^ On v-TOLxovuv lU, especially in Josephus, see Kypke, ObaervoM. II. 167, 
though exception may be taken to some of his examples. 


Ada Apocr. p. 69): compare Liv. 9. 2, Terent. Andr. prol. 3 
(Jelf 824. IL). — On the whole subject see Matth. 474, Lob. 
Ajax p. 354. 

To {h) would also belong Rom. iv. 17, KareVavrt ov liricmva-e 
6eov, if resolved into Karevavn Oeov, w iTTca-Tcvcre. On this sup- 
position, the law of attraction (so familiar had the construction 
become) is here extended so as to include the dative. Instances of 
this kind certainly do occur here and there (Kriig. 247 sq., Jelf 822. 
Ohs. 8), e.g. Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 39, rj-yero twv eavrav Tcov re Trca-Tiov, ots 
7]SeTo Koi S)v (i.e. tovtojv ols) y]7ri(TT€.i TToAXoTJs : see Fritz. Rom. 

I. 237. Still, KarivavTi Oeov, KorivavTi ov eTrtcrrero-e (see above, 1) 
is a simpler resolution of the words. The explanation proposed 
by Bretschneider {Lex. Man. p. 220) is far-fetched in more respects 
than one. 

In the following examples the antecedent is merely incorporated 
with the relative clause, without change of case : Mt. xxiv. 44, 17 
w/oa ov SoKctre, 6 vlo's rov avOpwirov ep^erai (Gen. il. 17, Ex. X. 28, 
xxxii. 34, Num. vi. 13, xxx. G), Mt. vii. 2, iv w fx^rpco ixeTpelre, 
fji€Tpr]Orj(T€TaL vplv' Jo. xi. 6, Mk, XV. 12 (H. xiii. 11), L. i. 4 ; also 
Rom. iv. 17, see above. When the clause containing the relative 
and the noun stands first, Greek writers usually insert in the prin- 
cipal clause a demonstrative corresponding to the noun, and also keep 
relative and noun apart by placing some word between them (Kriig. 
p. 144, Jelf 824. IL). 

The following are examples of attraction, with omission of the 
attracting word (demonstrative) : — 

a. Where a preposition is present : H. v. 8, efiaOev a^' wv IVaoe, 
i.e. oLTTo TovTiov o. (ü)v) £7raöe' Rom. X. 14, Jo. vi. 29, xvii. 9, 1 C. 
vii. 1 ; Demosth. Euerg. 684 b, ayavaKjiqa-acra €<!> ots iyoi €Tre7r6v$eLV' 
Plat. Cratyl. 386 a, Xen. An. 1. 9. 25, Arrian, Al. 4. 10. 3, Lysias 

II. 242 (ed. Auger.): see § 23. 2. 

h. Without a preposition : Rom. xv. 1 8, ov roXfxiQo-o} XaXeiv n wv 
ov Karctpytto-aro k.t.X., A. viü. 24, xxvi. 16 ; Soph. Phil. 1227, OEd. It 
855. On this, and on attraction with a local adverb (G. Kriig. 302 
sqq.), see § 23. 2. 

3. The noun which forms the predicate in a relative sentence, 
annexed for the purpose of explanation (0? — earl), sometimes 
gives its own gender and number to the relative, by a kind of 
attraction (Herrn. Vif/, p. 708, Jelf 821. 3, Don. p. 362) : Mk. 
XV. 16, TTJ? av\r}<;, 6 eart TrpatrcopLov G. iii. 16, ro) o-Trep/juari 
aov, 0? eart Xptcrro?' 1 Tim. iii. 15, eV otfcro Oeov, 7/7^9 earlv 
eKKXrjcria Oeov' K vi. 17, i. 14, Ph. i. 28, E. iii. 13, /x?) eKKaKelv 
iv Tal"; dXl'^eal fxov virep v^oiv, tjtl^ earl So^a v/xmv (for 0) ; 
also 1 C. iii. 17, where Meyer needlessly finds a difficulty in 


om^'69. Compare also the variants in licv. iv. 5, v. 6, 8. On the 
otiier hand, see E. i. 23, t?} tKKXijaia, r/rt? eVrt to aM/xa avrov' 
1 C. iv. 1 7, Col. i. 24, ii. 1 7. Some have wrongly referred to this 
head Col. iii. 5, 7jtl(; earlv elBcoXoXarpela, taking tjtl^ for arcva 
(/jLeXr)) ; tlie relative refers to irXeove^ia alone, see Hnther in loc. 
In Col. iii. 14, o seems the best reading, — a pure neuter, used 
without reference to the gender of tlie preceding or of the 
following noun : ^ on E. v. 5 see Kern. 1. In Mt. xxvii. 33 and 
similar passages o is qziod (seil, vocabuhtm). Tlie commentators 
on H. ix. 9 are not agreed, but most now refer ^Vi? to r) irpcoTTj 
aKTjvT] in ver. 8, so that the passage does not fall under this 
rule. There is greater difference of opinion in regard to Col. 
i. 27, but it is better to connect 09 with o ttXouto?, as the 
principal word, than with fivo-TrjpLov.'^ 

It would seem that the relative usually takes the gender of 
the noun which follows 

(1) Where this is regarded as the principal noun ; as when 
the relative clause gives the proper names of things which in 
the principal clause were mentioned in general terms (Mk. xv. 
1 6, 1 Tim. iii. 1 5 ; compare Pausan. 2. 1 3. 4, Cic, 2^to Sest. 42. 91, 
domicilia conjuncta quas urbes dicimus) — especially in the case 
of personal names (G. iii. 16, — compare Cic. Zcffg. 1. 7. 22, 
animal, quern vocamus hominem). 

(2) Where the relative should strictly have been a neuter, 
used absolutely, as in E. iii. 13. 

On the other hand, the relative retains the gender of the 
noun in the principal clause when the relative sentence serves 
to expand and illustrate the principal subject, containing some 
predicate of it (E. i. 23, 1 C. iv. 17).^ — See on the whole G. 
Krug. I.e. 90 sqq. ;^ and as to Latin, Zumpt, Gramm. § 372, 
Kritz, Sallust I. 292, [Madvig, Zat. Gr. § 316.] 

4. The relative pronoun appears to stand for the interroga- 
tive in a direct^ question in Mt. xxvi. 50, kralpe, e^' (that 

1 [See Ellicott in loc, Jelf 820. 1.] 

2 [The most recent editors read to tAovto?, so that, whether we take this word 
(Mey.) or fAV(T'rnplou (Ellicott) as the antecedent, the gender would result from 
attraction. The best texts, however, have instead of o,.] 

3 Comp. Bremi on Nep. Thrasyh. 2. 

* [See Ellicott on E. i. 14, Madvig 98.] 

* "O5 occurs in an indirect question in Soph. (Ed. R. 1068 ; see Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. II. 372. Compare also Passow s. v. [For examples of «s after verbs of 


is, eVt TL, Aristoph. Lydstr. 1101) irdpu. This misuse of the 
relative belongs to declining Greek (Schsef. Bern. V. 285), and 
similar examples with other relative pronouns are given by 
Lobeck {Phryn. p. 57), — see also Plat. Alcib. I. p. 110 c: 
there is however nothing very strange in such a usage if we 
consider how closely qui and qids are connected in meaning. 
It is not known in good prose. In Plat. Meii. 74 d, ri has 
been substituted, apparently without MS. authority : on Plat. 
Rey. 8. 559 a see Stallbaum. But it is not necessary on this 
account to assume an aposiopesis in Mt. xxvi. 50 (Meyer),-^ or 
with Pritzsche to regard the sentence as an exclamation, " Vetus 
sodalis, ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades ! " By the question 
itself Jesus could fully set before the mind of Judas the 
wickedness of his purpose. 

There would be less difficulty in supposing (with Lachmann) 
that o,TL stands for t/, i.e. hia tl, in Mk. ix. 11, Xiyovre^;' o,tl 
XeyovaLV ol ypa/x/jiaTeU k.t.X. ; as in Heliod. 4. 16, 7. 14 (quoted 
by Lobeck, l. c), 09Tt9 appears in a direct question. In the 
N. T. however 6,tl is never used as an interrogative pronoun 
(certainly not in Jo. viii. 25, see § 54. 1), even in an indirect 
question [§ 25. 1] ; and as another ore immediately follows, the 
first may be an error of transcription for r/ : see Fritzsche.^ 

knowing, declaring, etc., see Mt. vi. 8, Mk. v. 33, Jo. xviii. 21, A. xxii. 24, L. vi. 
3 {änyvun o' compare Mt. xii. 3, aviyv. T/), Mt. xi. 4, L. viii. 47 (Her. 4. 131, 
Plat. Me7i. 80 c, Her. 6. 124, Time. 1. 136, 137). With L. viii. 47, ^/' vv alrlccv 

Yi^aro (tvToZ ccT'/iyyuXiv, compare especially Plat. Tim. 67, 5/ a,? airta.; r«. T-pi 

uuTo. lufAßa'ivti 'Tru.&Yif/.a.Tdt., XiKr'idv. See Madvlg 198 b, Jelf 877. Ohs. 3 sq., A. 
Buttm. p. 250.] 

1 [Similarly Alford, Lightfoot, and others : against Fritz., Meyer urges that 
an exclamation would naturally have been expressed in an interrogative form. 
A. Buttm. (p. 253) agrees with Fritz. : comp. Vulg. (Cod. Amiat.), " ad quod 
venisti ? " {Clem. ; "ad quid venisti ? "). Most of those who read on in Mt. 
vii. 14 (on r'l see § 53. 8. c) take the word in the sense of because : A. Buttm. is 
inclined to regard the clause as an exclamation, but it is doubtful whether he is 
justilied in quoting Jer. ii. 36 (where on corresponds to the Hebrew nüO) as a 

parallel case.] 

^ ["Ot/ {ö,n) is received by almost all editors in Mk. ix. 11, 28 : it is 
taken in the sense of why? by Meyer, De Wette, A. Buttm., Alford, Webster 
and Wilk.,— either as being the pronoun 'o,ti used for n (Meyer, A. Buttm., 
Alf.), or through an ellipsis (as in n on, De W., Jelf 905 8. x). In Mk. ii. 
16, öt< {ö,n) is received by Tisch., Treg., A. Buttm., who also regard the 
word as interrogative. Tisch, quotes Barnab. Ep. 10. 1, oti l\ Muv^t^; I'lpnKiv ; 
(Hilgenf. üpriKiv'), rendered in the Vet. interp., " Quare autem Moyses dicit?" 
See also Banuib. E[>. 7. 9, 8. 5. In 1 Chr. xvii. 6 (cited by A. Buttm. 
p. 254) we find on corresponding with HDP i" the Hebrew : comp. Jer. ii. 36. 

Lachmann {Prd'f. ]). 43) coirqiares this use of 'o,n with the introduction of a 
direct question l;y tl (§ 57. 2). See Tisch, on Mk. ii. 16, Meyer on Mk. ix. 11, 


It' oTt were the true readinii, it niitilit rather be taken as ort 
because: see § 53. 8, 10. 

Rom. 1. It is pecuHar to Paul to connoct sometimes two, three, or 
more sentences by tlie repctiuion of the rehitive pronoun, even when 
it refers to different subjects: Cob i. 24 sq., 28, 29, E. iii. 11, 12, 
1 C. ii. 7 ; compare 1 P. ii. 22. — In other passages the singular 
relative has been supposed to refer to a series of nouns, and to liave, 
as it were, a collective force: e.g. E. v, 5, on Tra«; Tropi/o? 17 aKaOaproq 
7) TrXcoveKTfj^, OS eorti/ ctSwAoAcirp?/? k.t.A..^ But this is arbitrary, 
and would presuppose a similar forced explanation of Col. iii. 5 (see 
above, p. 207). 

Rem. 2. The relative clause beginning with os or osrts commonly 
follows the clause containing the noun, but takes the first place if it 
is to be brought into prominence (Kriig. p. 144) : 1 C. xiv. 37, 
,a ypa.(f>(t) vjxlv ort Kvpiov Icttlv' H. xii. 6, ov ayaira. KvpLo<i TraiSeveL' 
Rom. vi. 2, OiTLVi'? aTTcOdvofxev rf} a/xaprta, ttcos crt tpqaoyiev Iv avrr, \ 
Mk. viii. 34, al. With a demonstrative in the second clause: Ph. iii. 
7, ariva r^v fxot KepSr], ravra rjyrjfxaL k.t.X., Ja. ii. 10,^ Jo. xxi. 25, 
xi. 45, Mt. V. 39, L. ix. 50, A. xxv. 18, 1 C. iv. 2, H. xiii. 11 (Jelf 
817. Obs. 10). 

Rem. 3. The neuter o is prefixed to a whole sentence in the sense 
of as concerns, as regards, etc. (as quod in Latin) : Rom. vi. 10, 
o Sc ^tJ, ^17 TO) OiCo' G. ii. 20, o Se vvv ^cl» ev crapKL, iv ttIcttu ^w k.t.X. ', 
compare Matth. 478 (Jelf 579. 6). In both these passages, however, 
o may be taken as the object, quod vivit, — vita quam vivit. See Fritz. 
Horn. I. 393. (Jelf 905. 7.) 

Rem. 4. That 09 is used in prose for the demonstrative (i. e. in 
other cases than those which are familiar to all, Matth. 288 sq.) was 
believed by many commentators during the reign of empiricism. 
Now every beginner knows how to take the passages which were so 
explained; e.g. 2 C. iv. 6, 6 $€<)<; 6 el—wv ck ctkotov^ ^oj? Xaixxj/aL, 09 
eXafxij/ev iv rat? KapSi'ais k.t.X. In 1 C. ii. 9, Rom. xvi. 27, there is an 

A. Buttm. I. c, Grimm's Clavis s. v. As regards these three passages of St. 
Mark, however, it seems probable that on should rather be taken as the con- 
junction, introducing an assertion or exclamation (so Alford in ii. 16) : see 
§ 53. 10. 5.] 

' Compare Fritzsche, De Conformat. Crit. p, 46. 

2 [In Ja. ii. 10, L. ix. 50, there is no demonstrative : indeed none of the 
following examples, except Mt. v. 39, H. xiii. 11, are really in point.] 

3 [On the distinction between 0; and the indefinite relative östis, see Krü- 
ger p. 139 (who calls «V objective, o;ti; qualitative and generic), Jelf 816, 
Madvig 105, Clyde, Syntax p. 58 ; for the N. T., A. Euttm. p. 115, Green 
p. 122 sq., Webster, Ch\ p. 55, Lightfoot, Gal. pp. 177 i-q., 207, and especially 
Ellicott on G. iv. 24. "0;ri; properly indicates th^ class or kind to which an 
object belongs, and hence its most common meaning is, whoever ; elsewhere it 
may usually be rendered, a man who (a thing ivhich), a class of men who, such 
as, of such a kind as (Mk. xii. 18, Col. ii. 23, Ph. ii. 20, L. xxiii. 19). Hence 
e;ris often brings in an explanation or the statement of a cause (^Esch. Prom. 



Section XXV. 


1. The use of the interrogative pronoun r/?, tu, is in the 
!N". T. extended somewhat beyond its ordinary limits. Not only 
is Tt? of very common occurrence in the indirect question and 
after verbs of knowing, inquiring, etc. (whilst 09Tt?, o,tl, is 
never so used in the N. T.), but — especially in the neuter (jl) — 
it is sometimes found where a Greek writer would certainly have 
employed 6,Ti, so that the interrogative is weakened into our 
luhat. For examples of the former kind see Mt. xx. 22, L. xxiii. 
34 (Mk. xiv. 36), Jo. x. 6, A. xxi. 33, Eom. viii. 26, Col. i. 27,- 
al.: compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 1. 6, 1. 3. 17, Mem. 1. 6. 4, al.^ (Jelf 
877. Ohs. 2). Of the latter kind are Mt. x. 19, Sodrjaerat v/jllv 
. . . Tt \a\7](T€T6, quod dicatis, and L. xvii. 8, eroifiaaov, li 
SecTTvijaco, para, quod comedam (not quid comedam, which would 
hardly be allowable in Latin in this connexion) : compare Bernh. 
p. 443. Only once do we find o,tl, — in A. ix. 6.'^ The trans- 
ition to this use of rt is formed by such a construction as rl (j)d- 
jwatv ovK e-^ovat, Mk. vi. 36 (Mt. xv. 32), for which 6,tc (j)dy(o- 
aiv OVK lyovai might be substituted with but slight change of 
meaning ; just as in Latin both " non habent quid comedant " 
and " non habent quod comedant " are correct (Eamshorn, Lat. 
Gramm. 368).^ In the latter formula, tyeiv and habere simply 

V. 38, ojr/j Tpov^uKtv), as in Col. iii. 5, " covetousness, a thing which is 
idolatry " = "seeing it is idolatiy," — the reader at once perceiving that St. Paul 
introduces this statement of the quality of ri -rXiovilla, that he may enforce 
his exhortation. See also Jo. viii. 53, H. x. 35, E. iii. 13, Ph. iv. 3. On the use 
of csns to denote "that which is to he regarded as the especial attribute of the 
individual" (1 C. v. 1, L. ii. 4), see Jelf 816. 6. The two pronouns were con- 
founded in late Greek (see Lidd. and Sc. s. v., EUic. I.e.) : but in the IS. T. 
the distinctive use of each is almost always, if not always, maintained. See 
Fritz. ()/Msc. p. 182, Grimm's (Jlavis s. v., A. J>uttm. I.e. In modern Greek 
o?rts (which is commonly used in the nominative only) almost always has the 
meaning ([ui ; oj is extremely rare in the popular language : see Mullach, Vulg. 
p. 201. — "Offoi, oJos, oToTos, rikiKog, occur in the N. T. as indirect interroga- 
tives (see 2 Tim. i. 18, 1 Th. i. 5, 1 C. iii. 13, Col. ii. 1), and also — with the 
exception of ^x/x«? — as relatives. In H. i. 4, vii. 20 S(pp, x. 25, Rev. xviii. 7, 
ctros is accompanied by its correlative rocrovToi : oioi follows TotoHros in 1 C. 
XV. 48, al. {rnXtKovTOi, \UiV. xvi. 18?): ötoTo? follows rotovrc; in A. xxvi. 29. 
— It may be mcmtioned In^re that of the iKMiter of toctovtos, rotouroi, both 
iorjns occur in the N. T., according to the best J\1SS.] 

^ Herrn. /Knehyl. p. 461, Kllendt, Lex. Soph. II. 823. 

^ ["o,r/ is received here by the best editors. J 

3 LZumpt § 5G2, Madvig, Lat. Or. § 363.] 


express the notion of having or pofi^icmnfj, — " tliat which they 
might eat, they liave not : " in the foniier, the notion of an 
inquiry is also conveyed (and hence liaheo quid must sometimes 
be rendered I know what), — " inquiring wliat they are to eat, they 
liave not (anything to eat)." Similar examples are Xen. Cf/7\ 
6. 1. 48, ovfc txoy tI fiel^ov Ilell. 1. 6. 5, Soph. CEd. Col 317, 
ovK e'xw Ti (/>a) : see on tlie whole Heindorf, Cic. Nat. D. 
p. 347. 

The relative and interrogative are combined in 1 Tim. i. 7, 
jxri voovvT€<; fjL^re a Xeyovcro firjTe irepl rtvcov Scaßeßaiovvrai, noil 
intelligentes nee quod dicunt nee quid asserant. Similarly in 
Greek writers we find re and ojt in parallel clauses : compare 
Stallb. Plat. Hej). L 248, IL 261, Bornem. Xen. Cgr. p. 641.^ 

Schleusner, Haab (p. 82 sq.), and others refer to this head many 
examples which are of an entirely different kind : — 

(a) In some of these n's retains its meaning as an interrogative 
pronoun, and must be rendered in Latin by qids or quid : Mt. vii. 9, 
Tts ea-Tai [earriv] ii vfxCjv avOpo)7ro<; k.t.A.., quis er it inter vos homo, etc. ; 
compare Mt. xii. 1 1 , L. xiv. 5, xi. 5 sq. 

(h) In others ns is not an interrogative at all, but the pronoun 
aliquis: 1 C. vii. 18, Treptrcr/xr^/xeVos Tts iKkyjOr], fxr) iTncnrdcrOo), SOllie One 
who is circumcised is called (I suppose the case), let him not become 
uncircumcised ; Ja. v. 13, KaKoiraOd n?, irpo'^^vx'^o-Ooi (Jelf 860. 8). 
It is not correct to say that here rts stands for ct rts, see § 64. 5. 
Rem., [and § 60. 4]. Ja. iii. 13 should be thus punctuated (as by 
Pott, Schott, al.) : n's ao<l>b<s . . . iv vfjuv ; Set^arw k.t.X. In A. xiii. 
25 also we might write rtva /xe vTrovoctre eTvac ; ovk el/xl lyoi' though I 
do not consider the ordinary view (that nVa is for oVrt^a) inadmis- 
sible i^ compare Soph. FA. 1167, Callim. Epigr. 30. 2. 

Ti's is sometimes used where only two persons or things are spoken 
of, in the place of the more precise ttot^po^ (which never occurs as an 
adjective in the N. T.) : Mt. ix. 5, ri ydp ianv evK07rü)T€pov ; xxi. 31, 
Tts Ik Tuiv Suo iTTolrjcre ; L. vii. 42, xxii. 27, Ph. i. 22. Similar ex- 
amples are to be found in Greek writers,^ who are not so accurate in 

' [On the passages in wliich ris has been supposed to stand for the relative 
pronoun in the iN. T., see A. Buttmann p. 251 sq. : see also Jelf 877, and Rost 
and Palm, Lex. s. v. Compare Demosth. Dionys. p. 1290, ix.Xiyöf/,ivoi tIvuv at 
Ti(/.cu l-TiTiravTo' Fals. Leg. p. 433 sq., tI t«^' vfAiv l-^r;<pi(rTa.t, tout Wirripovv 
». T, >.. ] 

2 [De "Wette and Meyer treat the first clause as a question : Ewald and 
A. Buttmann regard t/v« (or rl) as used for the relative, and Meyer allows that 
this is grammatically admissible. Compare Ecclus. vi. 34, Ps. xxxix. 6, Lev. 
xxi. 17, Dt. xxix. 18 (Tisch. N. T. p. lix, ed. 7 ; Field, LXX p. xxv). See 
Jebb, Soph. Electr. pp. 32, 116.] 

3 Stallb. Philtb. p. 168 (Jelf 874. Ohs. 4). 


tlie distinctive use of rts and 7r6T€po<; as the Eomans are in regard to 
their quis and itter, — though even in Latin the distinction is not 
always observed.^ 

It is a mistake to say that the singular of the interrogative is used 
for the plural in such expressions as ri el-q ravra L. xv. 26, Jo. vi. 9, 
A. xvii. 20. Here the various objects referred to (ravra) are included 
under one general expression (rt), luhat (of what kind) are these things 
(hence also quid sihi wlunt) ; whereas in rtVa eo-rt k.t.A. (compare H. 
V. 12) there is definite reference to the plurality, quce (qualia) sunt: 
compare Plat. Thecet 154 e, 155 c.^ 

The interrogative rt sometimes stands at the end of the sentence, 
as in Jo. xxi. 21, ovto<; hi ri] in the orators ttw? is often so placed 
(Weber, Dem. p. 180 sq., Jelf 872). 

Both in the N. T. and in the LXX we meet with Iva tl, for what 
pur]Jose, wherefore, as a formula of interrogation : Mt. ix. i, ha tl 
vfxeU ivßvfjiiLcrÖe irovqpd ', xxvü. 46, L. xiü. 7, al. This expression is 
elliptical, like the Latin ut quid, and stands for Iva ri yeVryrat (or 
yivoiTo, after a past tense) ; see Herrn. Vig. p. 849, Lob. Ajax^^. 107 
(Jelf 882) : it is not uncommon in Greek writers, particularly the 
later; see Plat. Apol. 26 d, Aristoph. Eccles. 718, Arrian, Epict. 1. 
24, al, and compare E-uth i. 11, 21, Ecclus. xiv. 3, 1 Mace. ii. 7. 

2. The indefinite pronoun rt?, tl, is joined 

(a) To abstract nouns, for the purpose (inter alia) of soften- 
ing their meaning in some degree; as in Xen. Ctjt. 8. 1. 16, 
TOVTov^ Tj'yelro rj aKpareia tlvI rj dScKia ?; äfiekela air elv at, from 
a certain (a kind of) weakness or injustice, etc., Pint. Coriol. 14. 
Hence we meet with it when a writer is nsinsj a ficrure which is 
uncommon or too bold; as in Ja. i. 18, airap'yf) rt? qumdam 
(qusLsi) primitia^ (Buttm. I. 579, Schoem. Pint. Agis p. 73). 

(h) To numerals, when the number is to be taken approxi- 
mately and not exactly: A. xxiii. 23, Bvo TLvd<; aho2tt two, xix. 14; 
see Schief. Bern. TIL 269, Matth. 487. 4 (Jelf 659, Don. p. 380). 

(c) To adjectives of quality and quantity, with rhetorical 
emphasis : H. x. 2 7, (poßepd Tt9 iKhUrjatfi terrihilis qncedam^ 

1 [T/y is sometimes used in the sense of -roToi both in the N. T. (as L. 
iv. 36) and in classical Greek : see Herrn. Vig. p. 731, Shilleto, Dem. Fals. 
Le(j. J). 14. It was at one time supposed tliat -proToi fre(;[uently stands for t'h 
in the N. T., but in most of the })aHS<if(es (luoted in juoof ot this (e. g. Rom. 
iii. 27, A. iv. 7), if not in all, the (jualitative force of -rolo? may be traced with 
more or less distinctness. In modcun (ireck ToToi is frequently used in the 
same sense as t/j : see Mullach, \'ul<i. ])p. 53, 209.] 

2 Stallb. Plat. Enthypkr. p. 101, Weber, Jh'vi. p. 192. 

^ Klotz, Cic. L<JbL p. 142, >N'auck in JahiDs Jahrb. vol. 52. p. 183 sq. 


a right terrible {veri/ terrible) pnnishment ; ^ compare Luciai), 
Philop. 8, t\>oßep6v tl Oeafia- Diod. S. 5. 39, eV/Troi/o? rt? ßior 
^.Schill. Dial. 3. 17, Xen. Cyr. 1. G. 14, G. 4. 7,Helio(l. 2. 23. 
99, Lucian, Dial. M. 5. 1, riutarch, Phoc. c. Kl"-^ So of per- 
SODS in A. viii. 0, /jL€ya<; rt? a very great man (Xen. Eph. 3. 2, 
Athen. 4. 21, al.).^ Compare A. v. 3G, \ejcov elval riva eavrov 
that he is some one (of consequence,— really something) : see 
Bernh. p. 440, Kriig. p. 1 5 1, Jelf /. c. Obs. 1. In Latin quidam 
is similarly used, and also — where there is no substantive or 
adjective to be strengthened — aliquis, e. g. " aliquem esse," Cic. 
Att. 3. 15. 

JTa? Tt9 does not occur in the N. T. ; some would introduce 
it in 1 C. ix. 22 (for Trai/Tw? rcvas:) ^ on the testimony of a few 
authorities, but without necessity, and even without any critical 
probability. EU Tt9, 2cnus aliquis, may be emphatic in Jo. 
xi. 49. 

The neuter tl, aliquid, may be used with emphasis in Mt. xx. 20, 
for (diquid rnagni (see Fritz, in loc), but this is not probable. The 
pronoun must however be so taken in the formula dvat rt, G. ii. 6, 
vi. 3, al., as in the famiUar Latin phrase cdiquid esse. In every case 
it is the connexion that gives the emphasis (compare Herm. Vig. 
p. 731), and hence the subject belongs to the province of rhetoric: 
r\ Xcyuv, TL iTpd(T(Tuv, are particularly common in Greek writers. 

Rem. Tis may stand either before or after its substantive, as rts 
avrip A. iii. 2, avrip rts A. V. 1, X. 1 : the latter is the more usual 
position in the N. T. It has been doubted (Matth. 487. 6, Jelf 660) 
whether rts can be the first word of a sentence ; Hermann however 
{Emend. Rat. p. 95) sees nothing objectionable in this position of 
the pronoun. In the N. T. compare 1 Tim. v. 24, tlvu^v avOpwTrwv 
at d/xaprtat TrpoSrjkoL elcTLv . . . tl(Tlv 8e k.t.X., A. XVll. 18, XIX. ol. 

The abbreviated forms tov, tw (Buttm. I. 301, Jelf 156) are not 
found in the N. T. : they have been introduced by some into 1 C. 
XV. 8, 1 Th. iv. 6, but wrongly. 

1 ["Bernhardy's account of this usage {Syntax p. 442) seems to be the 
true one, that it has the power of a doubled adjectival sense, and generalises 
the quantity predicated, indicating some one of that kind, it may be any one. . . 
The indefiniteness makes the declaration more awful." Alford on H. x. 27. 
See also Delitzsch in loc, Jelf Z. c— The word iKVixntrii above should be ix.lox,n: 
it is curious that this mistake should have escaped correction in all the German 

- Compare Boisson. Nicet. p. 268. 

3 In these cases ^n is our [indefinite article] ein emphasised ; as we can say 
in German, da^ war eine Freude, that was a joy (a great joy), das ist ein Mann, 
that is a man (a, strong, able man). 

* See Boisson. Eunap. p. 127. 


Section XXVI. 


1. In accordance with the Hebrew idiom,^ theN. T. writers 
sometimes use ov (/jbrj) . . . Tra? in the place of ovSel*;, /jL7]S€l<;, 
always however placing the negative in direct connexion with 
the verb of the sentence: Mt. xxiv. 22, ovk av iaooOrj iraaa 
aap^' E,oni. iii. 20, i^ epycov vofiov ov BcKaicoOycreTai, iracra adp^' 
L. i. 37, OVK a^vvaTTjaei irapa rod 6eou irav prjfxa' 1 C. i. 29, 
OTTO)? p.r] Kavy^arjraL iraaa adp^ k.tX. ; compare also Eev. xxi. 
27, ov fjLTj eheXOj) et? avrrjv wav kolvov A. x. 14, ovSiirore 
ecpajov irav kolvov' Eev. ix. 4 (Jud. xiii. 4, Sus. 27). 

On the other hand, when ov {pur)) and Tra? are joined together, 
without an intervening word, the meaning is not every (like 
non omnis) : 1 C. xv. 39, oi) Tracra crap^ t) avrrj adp^' Mt. vii. 
21,0V 7ra9 XiyctyV Kvpie, Kvpce, eheXevaerac eh ttjv ßaa. . . . 
aXX* 6 TTOLCüv K.T.X., Not every one who (willingly) calls me Lord, 
tut (amongst those who do this) only he ivho does the will, etc.,^ — 
it is not the (mere) saying " Lord " that gives an entrance into 
the kingdom of heaven, but, etc. : A. x. 4 1 is similar. So also 
ov irdvTe^ is nonomnes: Mt. xix. 11, Eom. ix. 6, x. 16. 

This distinction has its foundation in the nature of the case. 
Inov . . . 7ra9, ov negatives the notion of the verb, — a negative 
assertion being made in reference to 7ra9 : thus in Eom. iii. 20, 
every man shall not-he-justified, the " not-being-justified " is 
asserted of every man, and hence the meaning is, no man shall 
he justified? In ov 7rä<;, it is Tra? that is negatived. — On the 
whole, however, the formula ov . . . ira^ occurs but rarely : in 

^ Leusden, Diall. p. 107, Vorst, Ilehr. p. .529 sq., Gesen. Lg. 831 [Gesen. 
Hehr. (Jr. p. 236 (Bagst.), Kaliscli, Hehr. Qr. I. 236. For the N. T., see Green, 
Or. p. 190, Jelf 905. Ohx. 9.] 

^ 1 cannot agree with Fritzsche (see also Prälim. p. 72 sq.) in joining ov with 
the verb and rendering the words ** no Lord-sayer." The "saying Lord, Lord," 
is by no means excluded by the second member of the verse (äxx' ö to*uv) ; 
indeed ^enTv to fiXv/u.«. rod 'recTpo; f^ov involves the acknowledgment of 
Jesus as the Lord. 

•^ Gesenius I. c. merely mentions this peculiarity of the Hebrew language, 
without making any effort to explain it : Ewald, on the other hand (p. 657) 
[Lehrb. p. 790 : ed. 7], has at least indicatc-'d the correct ex[)lanation. See Dru- 
sius on G. ii. 16, and lieza on Mt. xxiv. 22, Rom. iii. 20. 1 have never been 
able to see what Gesenius means by his distinction between ev ^as and f^h -^as. 


the examples quoted above (wliich are for the most part sen- 
tences of a proverbial character) it seems to have been used 
designedly, as being more expressive. The N. T. use of this 
construction is almost confined to those passages in which the 
0. T. phrase "'^?"'''7 is introduced : in the LXX, as a trans- 
lation, the idiom is of frequent occurrence.^ All Georgi's quo- 
tations {Vind. p. 317) to prove that this construction is pure 
Greek, are beside the mark : in every instance Tra? belongs to 
the noun, signifying either whole (as in fiyjhk rov airavra '^övov), 
or full, complete (as in iracra avar^Kf))} 

This Hebraism should in strictness be limited to the expression 
ov (yurj) . . . Tra? ; for in sentences with Tra? . . . ov dj^r/)^ there 
is usually nothing that is alien to Greek usage,^ or else the 
writer's reason for choosing this particular mode of expression 
is evident of itself. 1 Jo. ii. 21, ttup ^jrevSo^; e'/c t^? äXr]6eia<; 
ovK €(TTLv, all falsehood {every lie) is not of the truth, is a 
sentence which any Greek might have written: Jo. iii. 16, 
Xva Traq 6 iricrTevcov €t9 avrov fjurj aTToXrjTac, a)OC e^rj k.t.X. (v. l.)^ 
that every believer in Him may not perish, hut, etc. In E. v. 5, 
Tra? 7r6pvo<^ rj aKadapro^; rj ifKeoveKTrj^ . . . ovk 6p^et K\7jpovo/jLiav 
iv rfj ßaaCkela rod Xpiarov, the apostle may have had an 

1 For instance, Ex. xii. 16, 44, xx. 10, Dt. v. 14, xx. 16, Jud. xiii. 4, 2 S. 
XV. 11, Ps. xxxiii. 11, cxlii. 2, Ex. xxxi. 14 (Tob. iv. 7, 19, xii. 11). Yet they 
just as frequently use the classical ol . . . ovhis or ov^iv (see Ex. x. 15, Dt. 
viii. 9, Jos. X. 8, Pr. vi. 35, xii. 21), or even the simple oL^us (Jos. xxiii. 9). 

2 If Schleusner means to prove from Cic. Bosc. Amer. 27, and ad Famil. 
2. 12, that " non omnis " is used for ''nullus," he cannot have looked at these 

^ That is, in the singular ; when tSj is plural (e. g. all men love not death), 
that is the ordinary mode of expression in Greek, Of this kind is the passage 
quoted by Weiske {Pleon. p. 58) in illustration of this Hebraism, Plat. Phced. 
91 e, Tonpov^ £^*'> TavTO.; tov; 'su,Tpo(rhy Xoyov; ovk aTodi^nrii, rt tous uiv, tovs 
V ou ; **is it all . . . that you do not receive, or do you receive part and 
reject part ? " In what other way could this have been (simply) expressed ? 
In the LXX compare Num. xiv. 23, Jos. xi. 13, Ez. xxxi. 14, Dan. xi. 37. 

* If a writer joins the negative to the verb at the beginning of the sen- 
tence {ov lixaiu^rio-iTai), it may be supposed that he has the subject already 
before his niinil (tcc;), and therefore might say ov}=i;. If however he begins 
with -rx;, either he has not yet decided whether he will use an affirmative or 
a negative verb, or else it seems to him more appropriate to make a negative 
assertion in reference to every one (Ta; o -ria-Tivaiv . . . ov /u.^ uToknTcii), 
than to make an affirmative assertion in reference to no one. Such an assur- 
ance as " 7J0 believer shall perish " would seem to presuppose that there existed 
some apprehension which it was the object of the assurance to remove. 

^ [This is a v. I. in ver. 15, but in ver. 16 there is no doubt about the 
reading. ] 


affirmative predicate before his mind when he began the sen- 
tence (Ez. xliv. 9). Only in E. iv. 29, Kev. xviii. 22, and 
perhaps in Eev. xxii. 3, ovSev would have been more pleasing 
to a Grecian ear. 

In Mt. X. 29 (L. xii. 6), we find tv ii avrwi/ ov TrecretTat, (vel) unum 
non, ne unum qiiidem (in contrast with 8vo, " two for an assarion, 
and not even one, etc.") ; similarly in Mt. v. 18. Such expressions 
(with a negative) are also found in Greek writers : Dion. H. Comj). 
18 (V. 122), ixiav ovK av evpoi rts creAtSa* Antiqq. II. 980. 10, jxca t€ 
ov KareActTTCTo (according to Schsefer's emendation), Plutarch, Gracch. 
9 : 1 in Hebrew compare Ex. x. 19, Is. xxxiv. 16. This construction 
cannot be called either a Grsecism or a Hebraism ; in every case 
the writer aims at greater emphasis than would be conveyed by 
ovScLs, — which properly expresses the same thing, but had become 
weakened by usage. ^ 

L. i. 37, OVK dSvvaTi^creL irapa [rw] öecS irav prjfjia ^ — nothing^ 710 thing 
(compare "131, and in Greek cttos) — is probably taken from Gen. 
xviiL 14 (LXX). Mt. xv. 23, ovk aTreKptOr] avTYJ Xoyov, is simply, 
He answered her not a word : there was no need of ha here, — we 
also say "a word," not "one word." ^ The Greeks could use the 
same expression, and its occurrence in 1 K. xviii. 21 does not make 
it a Hebraism. 

2. The one, the other, is sometimes expressed by the repetition 
of eh : — 

(of) In antithetical clauses, eh . . . Kal eh : Mt. xx. 21, xxiv. 
40, xxvii. 38, xvii. 4, Mk x. 37, Jo. xx. 12,G.iv. 22,— but in 
L. xvii. 34, 6 eh . . . [Kal] 6 erepof;,^ compare xvi. 13, xviii. 10, 
^sop 119 (De Eur.) : so in Hebrew in^, Ex. xvii. 12, Lev. xii. 8, 

' See Schsefer on Plutarch I. c, and on Dionys. Compos, p. 247, Erfurdt, 
Soph. Antig. p. 121. [Jelf 738. Obs. 3.] 

^ Hence also the combination ovTi ils nemo quisquam, nemo unus, Mt. 
xxvii. 14, ovTi h p,f/,a, ne unum, quldem, Jo. i. 3, Rom. iii. 10, 1 C. vi. 5 [i?ec.] : 
see Herrn. Vig. p. 467, Weber, Dem. p. 501 (Xen. Cyr. 2. 3. 9, 4. 1. 14). 
This is frequently found in the LXX (especially as a rendering of TflS N^)> as 

T V 

Ex. xiv. 28, Num. xxxi. 49. Compare also ov . . . Tori, 2 P. i. 21. 

^ [This passage is quoted above with the reading Tapx roZ hou, which is 
received by recent editors. In favour of taking /^^a as word (not thing), see 
Meyer and Alford in loc, Ellic. Jlld. L. p. 49.] 

* No one who has learnt to make distinctions in language will require 'iva, 
here, on the ground that iii is exi)ressed elsewhere (Mt. xxi. 24, Ifurmu uf^us 
xu,yeo Xoyo* ivoc). 

* [Besides these two forms of expression, we find the following in the N. T. : 
ui . . . Kot,) iTipos (Mt. vi. 24, L. xvi. Vd), ö us ■ . . ö ^i 'ir. (L. vii. 41, A. 
xxiii. 6), ui . . . oh 'ir. (L. xvii. 35, Tisch, ed. 7), o iTs . . . <5 «xxaj (Rev. 
xvii. 10). In L. xvii. 34, xviii. 10 ((juoted above), it is doubtful whether we 
should read tJs or ö u?. In G. iv. 24 we lind f^ia, ju.iv, not followed by a second 
clause. In Mk. ix, 5, Mt. xvii. 4, L. ix. 33, there are thr-ee members {us . . • 
Kut us . . . xa.\ us). See A. Ruttm. p. 102.] 

SFXT. xxvii.] NUMr>i:i: and ckndkii of nouns. 217 

xv. 15, 1 S. X. 3, al. 'J he Greek said eU fieu ... el? Be, or eU 
fiev . . . 6 Be-,^ for the examples which Georgi and Schwarz ^ 
have quoted as parallel to tlie N. T. formula are rather 
enumerations proper, reckonings of a sum total (e.g. ci(/ht in 
all, one .... one .... 07ie .... etc.). 

(b) With a reciprocal meaning : 1 Th. v. 11, oLKoBofietre eh 
rov €va' 1 C. iv. 6. This would rather be an Aramaism '^ (hence 

the Peshito repeats ^^ to express aXXrjX., e.g. in Mt. xxiv. 10, 
Jo. xiii. 35), but is not in discordance with Greek syntax ; see 
Her. 4. 50, ev irpo^ ev av^ßdXkeLV Lucian, Conscr. Hist. 2, 
w^ ovv €v, (pacrlv, evl irapaßa\eiv' Asin. 54. Compare also the 
phrase ev dvO' kv6<; (Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 339, Bernhardy, Dionys. 
Per kg. p. 853), and Kypke II. 339. 

Mt. xii. 26, 6 o-arai/as tov (raravav iKßdXXec, is rendered by some 
(on the principle of cuneus cuneum trudit), " the one Satan casts out , 
the other Satan ; " but the true translation is, Satan casts out Satan. 
Compare, on the other hand, L. xi. 17. 

The Hebrew idiom, the man . ... to his friend, or brother, is 
retained by the LXX (Gen. xi. 3, xiii. 11, Jud. vi. 29, Ruth iii. U, 
Jer. ix. 20, al.), but does not occur in the N. T. : compare however 
H. viii. 11 (a quotation from the LXX), ov fxr] 8i8a^(xxnv cKacrros t6v 
7rXrj(TLov (or better ttoXlttjv) avrov kol eKacrros tov aSeXcjiov avTOV. 

On a Hebraistic mode of expressing everij, by repeating the noun, 
e.g. rj/xepa kol rjixipa, see § 54. 1. 



Section XXVII. 


1. The singular of a masculine noun, with the article, is not 
unfrequently used in a collective sense to denote the whole 
class : Ja. ii. 6, yrc/judaare tov tttco-^ov (in 1 C. xi. 22 we find 
the plural). Ja. v. 6, Eom. xiv. 1, 1 P. iv. 18, Mt. xii. 35. This 
usage is especially common in the case of national names, as 

^ See Fischer ad Leusden. Diall. p. 35, Matth. 288. Rem. 6. 

2 Georgi, Vind. p. 159 sq., Schwarz, Comment, p. 421. 

3 Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. p. 330. [Cowper, Sijr. Or. p. 112.] 


'lovSatof; Eom. iii. 1 ; so Bomaniis often stands for Romani 
(Markland, Eur. Suppl. 659). This quality is brought out 
more purely and sharply by the singular than by the plural, 
Avhich points to the multitude of the individuals [§ 18. 1]. 
Akin to this is the use of the singular in reference to a plurality 
of objects, to denote somethiug which belongs to each of the 
objects : 1 C. vi. 19, otl to cT(ii\xa v\Ji(hv vao<i r. dy. irvevjxaro^ 
(the reading of the best MSS.) ; Mk. viii. 1 7, ireTrcupcojULevrjv 
e^ere rrjv KapSiav (Ja. iii. 14, L. i. 66, 2 P. ii. 14, al.) ; Mt. 
xvii. 6, eireaav eirl irpo^wirov avrcov (L. ii. 31, 2 C. iii. 18, 
viii. 24) ;^ Eev. vi. 11, eSoOt] avrol^ crroXr) XevKrj (L. xxiv. 4, 
A. i. 10 ?) ; E. vi. 14, TrepL^coadfievoL rrjv 6cr<^vv v/jlcov k.t.X. 
(Jelf 354). This distributive singular, as it may be called, is 
common in Greek writers: Xen. An. 4. 7. 16, el^ov Kvy^pZ^m 
Kau KpdvT] KoX jxa'^aipLov .... hopv k.t.X., Cyr. 4. 3. 11, 
Eurip. Cycl 225, Thuc. 3. 22, 4. 4, 6. 58, Pol. 3. 49. 12, ^1. 
Aiiim. 5. 4; compare Cic. Rah. 4. 11, Sen. Ep. 87. In the 
LXX compare Gen. xlviii. 12, Lev. x. 6, Jud. xiii. 20, Lam. 
ii. 10, 2 Chr. xxix. 6 : see also Testam. Pair. p. 565.^ In the 
IS^. T., as elsewhere, the plural is the form ordinarily used (so 
also in L. xxiv. 5, A. i. 10^). See, in general, Elmsley on 
Eur. Med. 264, Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 158. 

The collective use of the singular must not be extended beyond 
its natural limits. In 1 C. vi. 5, haKpivai dva fxiaov rov dSeXc^ov, 
Tov dS. does not stand for r^s a^^Xt^oT-qTO'; : nor would anything be 
gained by such a supposition, for dvd jxiaov between should be fol- 
lowed by the mention of particular individuals, not of a collective 
whole. (Mt. xiii. 25 is a different case.) We should have dm /xeVoi/ 
a.S€\(jiov Koi dSiXcßov (Gen. xxiii. 15), or twv dSeX^o»»/ avrov (see 
Grotius, — compare Pol. 10. 48. 1), or else the structure is faulty 
through excessive conciseness. Even in Meyer's explanation it 
is imphed that the expression is incorrect, as it is also without 

2. Conversely, the plural of the class (masculine or femi- 
nine) is used where the writer wishes to express himself gene- 

1 cannot bring in here uto or -rpo tj)o;utov avröJv or vfiuv^ xa.rk Tp. -roivruv^ 
etc. (L. ii. 31, A. vii. 45, Kx. xxxiv. 11, Dt. iii. 18, vii. 19, viii. 20, al.), as 
these phrases had ahcady become mere adverbs. 

In 1 T}i. i. 7, usri yivifföcci vfjiMi <rv-rov 'jra.ffi ro7s TiffnvouiriVy the singular 
is quite regular, because Paul is thinking of the church as a whole. 1 C. x. 6, 
11 [Ii«c.], 1 P. V. 3, are of a dillerent kind ; here the singular would be inap- 

^ [In these two passages Eec. has the singular, the best MSS. the plural,] 


ralbj, though the predicate directly refers to one individual 
only : ]\It. ii. 20, reOvijKaaiv ol ^ijtovptc^ ttjv '\frv')(^rjv tov ttulBiov, 
thougli Herod the Great alone is meant (ver. lU) ; comp. Ex. iv. 
19, and see ^schyl. From. 67, Eurip. Hec. 403, ^schin. adv. 
Timarch. 21, and Bremi in loc} On the other hand, in Mt. 
ix. 8, iSo^aaav tov 6eov tov BovTa e^ovalav ToiavTrjv Tol<; 
dvOpcoTroc^, the reference is certainly not to Clirist alone ; the 
words must betaken quite generally, as in H. ix. 23. In Mt. 
xxvii. 44, OL XTjaTUi, we must recognise a different tradition 
from that followed in L. xxiii. 39.'^ In 1 C. xv. 29, virep tmv 
v€Kp(bv can hardly refer to (the dead) Christ, — in that case we 
should have had ek tov^; veKpov<;, — but must be understood of 
(unbaptised) dead men. 

In A. xiii. 40, to elprjixivov €V T0t9 7r/30^7/rai9 (Jo. vi. 45), we 
have merely a general form of quotation (A. vii. 42, iv ßLßktu) tCjv 
7rpo(firjTo)v), just as we ourselves say "in Paul's Epistles," etc., when 
we either do not wish or are not able to give the exact reference. 
Mt. xxiv. 26, iv Tots Taix€LOL<; (opposed to iv TYj ip-qp-io) is essentially 
of the same kind : compare Liv. 1. 3, Silvius casu quodam in silvis 

In Mt. xxi. 7, iirdvoi avTwv probably refers to the t/xana ; but 
there would be nothing absurd in the words even if they referred 
to the two animals, any more than in iinßeßrjKois cVt 6vov koI ttCjXov, 
ver. 5. We ourselves say loosely, " he sprang from the horses," 
although only one of the team, the saddle-horse, is meant. 

It is quite erroneous to suppose that in 1 C. xvi. 3 the plural 
cVio-ToAac is used for the singular (Heumaun in loc). Though 
iina-TokaL may be used of a single letter,^ yet in this passage the 
words Sl i-jvLo-T. must certainly be joined with Tripxj/o), and it is in 
itself not at all improbable that Paul might send several letters to 
different persons. 

3. Not a few nouns which in German [and English] are 
used in the singular are either always or usually plural in the 
N. T. These nouns denote objects which — from a general, or a 
Grecian, or a Biblical point of view — present to the senses or to 
the mind something plural or comprehensive (Krug. p. 12, Jelf 
355, Don. p. 367). Thus we find al(bve<; H. i. 2, the luorld 

^ Porson, Eur. Phoen. 36, Reisig, Conject. in Aristoph. p. 58, and 
C. L. Roth, Grammat. Qucest. e C. Tacito (Norimb. 1829), § 1, [Green, Gr. 
p. 83 sq.] 

2 [On the other side, see Smith, Diet, of Bible III. 1488 ; Lange, Life of 
Christ IV. 397 (Transl.) ; Farrar, Life of Christ, p. 410 sq., and note on L. xxiii. 
39. Compare Green p. 84.] 

3 Schaff. Plutarch V. 446, Poppo on Thiic. 1. 132. 


(D^Dpiy) ; ovpavoL ccdi} compare 2 C. xii. 2 ; tcl a^ia the sanc- 
tuary, H. viii. 2, ix. 8, 12, al. ; avaToXal, Bvafial, the regions 
of the Bast, West, Mt. viii. 11, xxiv. 27 (Plat. Def. 411b, Bpin. 
990 a, Diod. S. 2. 43, Dio C. 987. 32, Liician, Feregr. 39); 
ra Se^cd, apiarepd, evcovvfia, the right, left side (frequently) ; 
6vpaL fores, folding doors (so also irvXac in Greek writers), 
A. V. 19, Jo. XX. 19, — but not A. xvi. 26 sq., Mt. xxiv. 33, for 
here dvpat is a real plural ; koXttol tosom, L. xvi. 2 3 {k6\'ko<; in 
ver. 22), compare Paus. 6. 1. 2, ^1. 13. 31 ; ra Ifidria of the 
(single) upper-garment, Jo. xix. 23, xviii. 4, A. x. 6 ; ^ the names 
of the festivals ijKaivia, yeveaia, a^vfjua (TlavaO-qvaia, Satur- 
nalia^) ] rydfjLot nuptials, Mt. xxii. 2, L. xii. 36 (compare Tob. 
xi. 20^); oyfrcovLa wages, Ptom. vi. 23 (Fritz. Bom. I. 428), 
and dpjvpca pieces of money, shekels, Mt. xxvi. 15, xxviii. 12. 
When the names of countries or cities are plural, the cause 
must be sought in the (original) plurality of the provinces 
(Gallice) or of the distinct parts of the city, as ^ASrjvai, Udrapa, 
^IXiTTTToi, and probably rd 'lepoaokvfxa^ Lastly, the plural 
of those nouns which denote a feeling, a disposition, or a state, 
expresses the forms or acts in which these are manifested : 1 P. 
ii. 1, diroOefievoi irdaav KaKiav . . . k. viTOKplaet^ k. <^66vov^ 
K. irdaa^ KaroXakidq' 2 C. xii. 20, e/ot?, ^r]Xo<;, 6v/jlol, ipidelai, 
KaraXakLai, 'yjndvpta/jLOL, (pvcncüaet^;, dicaTaaTaaiai' 2 C. xi. 23, 
ev davdroc^ TroXXdKi^- E. vi. 11, G. v. 20, 1 P. iv. 3, Ja. iL 1 
(2 C. ix. 6), Jude 13, 1 C, vii. 2.^ Thus the plural oUrtpfioL, 
^^^Üp., is more common than the singular, which is found once 
only (Col. iii. 12 -i?. IJ): E. ii. 3, d^XrjuaTa t^9 aapKo^, also 
comes in here.^ 

The plural of at/x,a hlood occurs Jo. i. 13 (with reference to natural 
generation) : the only direct parallel to this is found in a poetical 

^ Schneider, Lat. Gr. II. 476. 

2 [These two references are wrong. In ed. 5, "Winer gives Mt. xxvii. 31, 
Mk. V. 30, Jo. xiii. 4, 12, A. xviii. 6 : hence we should probably read liere Jo. 
xix. 23, xiii. 4, A. xviii. 6.] 

^ Poppo, Time. III. iv. 20. 

^ [A mistake, pr()ba])ly for viii. 20, or xi. 18.] 

^ (Jomp. Nobbe, Schedfjß Ptokm. I. 22. [See also Smith, Diet, of Bible 
1. 082.] 

« Frit/. Rom. III. 6, Kritz, Sallust I. 76. 

^ [Here the plural has the support of one only (K) of the uncial MSS,] 

* On the whole su}>j(;ct see Jacobs, Act. PIt'dol. Monac. 1, 154 sq., Schoem. 
riut. Afjis]). 75 sq., Stallb. Plat. Ii(p. II. 3G8, Ileinichen, J^hiseb. III. 18 sq., 
Bernh. p. 62 sq. (Jelf 355, Don. p. 367). 


passnge, Eur. Ion G93, but tlie ])lural in itself presents no more 
difiiciilty in the case of al/xa tlian in tliat of other fluids, as tu vSara 
and rayaXttKra, Plat. Le(j(j. 10. 887 d (Jelf 355). In Kev. xviii.24 
at/Aara is a real })lural. The plural is not used for the singular in 
at ypaffiat, to, upa ypci^/xara ', or in at SLaOrjKat Kom. ix. 4, E. ii. 12, 
the covenants which God repeatedly made in the patriarchal age, 
with Abraham, with Jacob, through Moses (compare Wis. xii. 21, 
2 Mace. viii. 15). 'ETrayyeAtat, H. vii. 6, must be similarly explained. 
Neither in these words, nor in Jo. ix. 3, 2 C. xii. 1, 7, nor in H. 
ix. 23 (where the language is general), can we assume the existence 
of a Hebraistic pluralis majestatis. 

Ta a-aßßara, where the weekly day of rest is meant (Mt. xii. 1, 
L. iv. 16, al), either is a transcript of the Aramaic xnnc'*, or is 
formed according to the analogy of names of festivals. With more 
reason might ayta aycwv, used in H. ix. 3 for the most holy place 
of the temple of Jerusalem, be regarded as a pluralis excellentice ; 
unless indeed (with Erasmus and others) we prefer the accentuation 
dyia dytüji/ (compare SctAata SctAaiW, Soph. £1. 849). But though 
in the Pentateuch this part of the Israelitish sanctuary is called to 
ayiov Twi/ dyiwv (Ex. xxvi. 33, Num. iv. 4, compare Joseph. Antt. 
3. 6. 4), yet in 1 K. viii. 6 this very (plural) form ra ayta twv dytW 
is used in the same sense. ^ We may compare the Latin penetralia, 
adyta (Virg. AEn. 2. 297). 

As to Ph. ii. 6, TO elvat tcra öeu), where tcra is used adverbially, 
compare the classical usage of the word, //. 5. 71, Odyss. 1. 432, 
15. 520, Soph. (Ed. R. 1179, Thuc. 3. 14, Philostr. Ai?. 8. 26, al. ; 
and see Eeisig, (Ed. Col 526 (Jelf 382. 1). 

4. The dual of the noun is not found in the N. T. ^ (except in 
the numeral ^vo), the plural being used in its place, — even with 
hvo, see Mt. iv. 18, xviii. 9, xxvi. 37, Jo. iv. 20 [40 ?], A. xii. 6, 
al. Indeed in later Greek generally the dual form is rare. In 
Eev. xii. 14, rpe^erau Kaipov koI Kacpov^ Kal rjixiav Kacpov, the 
plural by itself denotes tivo years : this is an imitation of the 
Chaldee P^'^V in the Greek versions of Dan. vii. 25.^ Standing 
thus between a year and half a year, the plural was allow- 
ably made to signify tvjo years. The use of '^povo^, y^povoi, 
in the sense of year, years, becomes more and more common 

1 [Not in this passage only : see Num. iv. 19, 2 Chr. iv. 22, v. 7 (quoted b}' 
Bleek in loc.).'\ 

^ [It is not found in the LXX, or in modern Greek : see Mullach, Vulg. p. 
149 sq.] 

•^ It should be noticed that the Chaldee has (as a rule) no dual : see my 
Chaldee Grammar p. 77. ["As a rule" — because "the few dual forms are 
borrowed from the Hebrew, and are found only in Biblical Chaldee."] 


in later Greek : see also Evang. Ajoocr. pp. 60, 61, Epiplian. 
Mon. 29. 28. 

Bornemann discovers a trace of the dual in A. xv. 12, in a reading 
l^-qyovfxiviM (with v added above the line) found in a single MS., — - 
from which Tischendorf quotes the reading ii-qyovfxevoL, — and is ready- 
to greet this number Iceio animo I 

5. The neuter singular or plural is sometimes found where 
persons are referred to, the writer wishing to make his state- 
ment altogether general (Jelf 436. 2) : 2 Th.ii. %,to Kare-^ov 
o'iSare (in ver. 7, o Kare'^^^cov) ; H. vii. 7, to eXarrov viro rod 
KpeiTTovo^ evXoyelrat (Theodor, m loc.) ; L. i. 35, 1 C. i. 27, 28, 
ra fjLOJpa rod koct/jlov ... to- aaOevrj ra e^ovOevr^fjueva (in ver. 2 6 
01 cro(f)OL); Jo. vi. 37, 1 Jo. v. 4 (compare ver. 1) : so also in 1 C. 
xi. 5, but not in Col. i. 20, H. vii. 19, Jo. iii. 6, see the more 
recent commentators. In Kom. xi. 32 rou? irdvTa<; is the estab- 
lished reading. Similarly in Thuc. 3. 11, ra Kpariara iirl tov^ 
v7ro8e€(TTipov<; ^vveirrj'yov' Xen. An. 7. 3. 11, t<x /xev cj^evyovra 
KOI aTToBiSpao-Kovra Tyyu-et? iKavol icro/ieda SccoKeiv Koi fiacTTevetv, 
rjv Be Tt(; ävdiarTjTat k.t.X} 

6. The neuter seems to be used for the feminine in Mk. xii. 
28, TTOta iarlv €VTo\r) 7rpo)T7} iravTOiv (for iraaoiv, which is a 
correction). Here however Trdvrcov stands without any generic 
relation to the noun which precedes, for the general expression 
omnium (renim) : ^ comp. Jjucmn, Fiscat. 13, /Jbla Trdvrcov rjye 
dXr)6r)<; (ptXoaocpia (according to the common text ; al. irdprco^;), 
Thuc. 4. 52, Td<; re äXXa<; TroXet? /cat Trdvrcov fjudXiara rrjv 
" Avravhpov : see D'Orville, Charit, p. 549 sq., Porson, Eur. 
Plicen. 121, Fritz, on Mk. I. c. We cannot however say (with 
D'Orville /. c. p. 292 sq.) that in A. ix. 37, Xovaavre^ aurrjv 
e67]Kav, the masculine Xovaavref; is used for Xovaaaac, because 
the women attended to the washing of the corpse. The 
writer's language is quite general ^ and impersonal: they washed 
and laid. If Luke had wished to notice the custom with his- 
torical precision, he must have expressed himself more circum- 
stantially. Compare Xen. Mem. 2. 7. 2, avveXyXvOaatv . . . 

1 Popix), Thuc. I. 104, Seidler, Kur. Troad. p. 61, Kritz, Sail. II. 69. 

^ [A. Buttm. p. 374, Oreeii p. 109: A. Buttiiuum compares Iv to7;, wliich is 
joined to a superlative without change; of gender (Don. p. 390), as iv tois -rXutrrxi 
Thuc. 3. 17. See further Alford on Mk. I. c] 

•■* llerin. Soph. Trachia. p. 39 (Jelf 379. Oba. 1). 


a8e\^at re Kai a^ek^iZal kol avey^ial roaavrai, w^t ecvac iv ifj 
oLKia TeaaapaKaiSeKa tou«? e\6v6epov<;, fourteen free persons, 
where the masculine is used, altliougli, as it appears, these free 
persons are women : Suet.-A'^T. 33, acceptum a quadam Locusta, 
venenariorum inclita. (In L. xxii. 58 and Mt. xxvi. 71 we have 
two different accounts ; see Meyer.^) 

The masculine does not stand for the feminine in Gen. xxiii. 3, 
ttjecTTTy Aßpaa/x airo Tov viKpov avTOV' or in ver. 4, 6a{f/(j) tov V€Kpov 
pov (ver. 15), though Sarah is meant; or in Susan. 61, i-TroLYjaav 
ovrots ov TpoTTov iTTovqpivcravTo tw ttXyjctlov, though Susanna is meant. 
With Gen. xxiii.- compare Soph. Aiitig. 830, </)6'i/x€Va) (vulg. <^6ip,iva) 
ToU LaoO€OL<s ^yKXrjpa Xax^'f^v p-^yo- ' for a corpse the Greeks always use 
6 i'€Kp6<;, never the feminine. See further Herm. Soph. Antig. pp. 
114, 17G. (Jelf 390. L c.) 

Rem. 1. In Rom. xi. 4, a quotation from the 0. T. (1 K. xix. 
18), we meet with the feminine -f] BaaX (Hos. ii. 8, Zeph. i. 4). It 
is not probable that this form was chosen for the sake of expressing 
contempt, in the same way as the feminine forms of the names of 
idols are said to be used in Arabic and by Rabbinical writers (1).^ 
In this particular prssage the LXX has t(3 BaaA, but Paul, who is 
quoting from memory, might easily write 17 BaaA., a form which he 
had found in some passages of the LXX (though the MSS. vary 
now) : Riickert is in perplexity, as he often is. It was after all a 
matter of indifference whether the male or the female Baal should 
be mentioned. — The feminine p.oixa\LSe<;, Ja. iv. 4, in the midst of a 
general address, is explained bj^ T heile by reference to O. T. usage : 
against this see De Wette. There is no decisive external evidence 
for the omission of /xot^ot Kac ; and to refuse to admit an error of 
transcription, even when similar words come together, is to carry 
reverence for the (remaining) principal MSS. too far.^ 

Rem. 2. When a noun of any gender is taken in a material sense, 
as a word, it is joined with the neuter article : as G. iv. 25, ro^Ayup, 
the (word) Hagar.^ The feminine may seem to be used for the 
neuter in rj ovat. Rev. ix. 12, xi. 14 ; but the writer probably had 
some such word as OXtif/Ls or TaXanroipia before his mind. 

Rem. 3. On the adverbial use of the feminine adjective (as in 
tSta, Kar tStav, etc.), see § 54. 

1 [See however Alford on Mt. xxvi. 69 ; but especially Westcott, St. John pp. 

'^ "We ourselves saj^ Er hegruh seinen Todten. [That is, He hiiried his dead, 
— the last word being masculine.] 

=* See Gesenius in Eosenm. Hejjertor. I. 139, Tholuck on Eom. I. c. ; and 
on the other side Fritz. i?Gm. II. 442. 

* [j< agrees with A and B in omitting /uoix«) xa), and the testimony of 
these MSS. is rightly followed by recent editors. Ste Alford's note for a good 
defence of Theile's view.] 

^ [See above § 18. 3.] 

224 the cases ix general. [part iii. 

Section XXVIIL 

the cases in general.^ 

1, It was not difficult for foreigners to understand the ge- 
neral import of the Greek cases. Even in the language of the 
Jews the ordinary case-relations are exhibited clearly enough, 
though they are not marked by sjDccial terminations ; and, in 
particular, the Aramaic approaches the Western languages in 
the mode of expressing the genitive. To learn to feel, as a 
Greek would feel, the force of the oblique cases in all their 
varied applications, remote as some of these applications were, 
was a matter of great difficulty ; and in this particular Greek 
usage did not accord with the vivid and expressive style of the 
Oriental tongues. Hence we find that the N. T. writers, in 
accordance with the Oriental idiom, and partly in direct imitation 
of it, not unfrequently use a preposition where a Greek writer, 
even in prose, would have used the case alone. Thus we have 
BiSovaL eV, ia6i€tv cltto, fxere^eiv eV, in the place of hi^övai, 
io-di€Lv, fjL€T6')(^6Lv Tiv6<; (comp. § 30) ; iroXe/jielv /juerd tlvo<^^ instead 
of TLvi) Karrjyopelv and iyfcdkeiv Kara tlvo^ (L. xxiii. 14, Eom. 
viii. 33), for tlvl ; ^ eyelpetv rtva el^ ßaaiXea, A. xiii. 22 (§ 32) ; 
ßacriXeveiv eirl tlvl or nvd pV "=1??), for tlv6<; ; dOwo^ with avro, 
in the place of the simple genitive.^ In the LXX compare 
<f>€ihea6aL eirl tlvl, or tlvo<;, or vTrep tlvo<; (/V D^n). 

This use of prepositions in the place of cases is, however, a general 
feature of (antique) simplicity, and is therefore found not only in 
the earlier Greek poets (as Homer), but also in the prose writers (as 
Lucian).^ Hence also for several expressions of this kind parallels 
may be produced even from good writers, — e. g. for iravciv airo, com- 
pare Matth. 355. Rem. 1.^ 

1 Hermann, De Emend. Rat. I. 137 sqq., Bernhardy p. 74 sc^q. There is a 
monograph on the subject by J. A. Härtung, Uehei' die Casus, ihre Bildmuj und 
Bedeutung in der (jriech. u. tat. Sprache (Erlang. 1831) : and anotlier by Runq)el, 
Ueher die CasuHlehre in Beziehung auf die griech. Spraclie (Halle 1845). 
[Donalds. New Grat. p. 428 sqq., Gramm, p. 464 sqq., Clyde, Greek Synt. pp. 
23 s(pi., 38 : compare Jelf 471 sqq.] 

^ Somewhat as the liyzantim's say ayccvuKnlv or opy'tZ,i(T6ui x.ard, tivos, or like 
opy'iZ-i.ir6a.i Tfo? riva. I)io. Chr. 38. 470. 

^ krebs, Ohn. e Joneplio p. 73 scj. [Liinemann adds,t Iv, Ph. iv. 12.] 

* See Jacob, Qwxa^t. Lucian. ]>. 11 s(j. 

•'' [This excessive use of picqxjsitions may have 1)een then, as now, a character- 
istic of tlu! poj»ular sjjokcn languagt! ; see J. Donaldson in Kitto, Cycl. II. 171. 
For many exam})les (jf this kind in modern Greek see JViuUach, V^idg. p. 323 
sqq., Sophocles, Gramm, p. 152 sq(i.] 


2. Tliere is in reality no such thing as the use of one case 
in the place of another (enallagc castuum) ; but sometimes two 
cases may be used in the same connexion with equal correctness, 
if the relation is such that it can be viewed in two different 
ways. Thus we may have ^ AaavpLo<^ reo fyeveb and 'AaavpLO<i 
TO jevo*;, Trpo<;Kvvelv rivi to show reverence to, and irpo^Kvpelv 
Tivd to reverence, Ka\w<; TroLelv tlvo, and tuvl (Tliilo, Act. Thom.. 
38), evoyo^ Tivi and tivo^ (Fritz. Matt. p. 223),^ oyuoio^ iivo^ 
and rivi, irX'^povaQai tlvo'; {from or of something) and tlvl 
(with, 1)7/ incans of). So also puip^viqa-Kea-dai Tb and tlvo^ (like 
recordari rei and rem) ; in the former case {papiv. tl, to 
remember a thing) I regard the remembrance as directed 
(transitively) on the object ; in the latter {p^ipiv. tlvo^, to 
bethink oneself of a thing, meminisse rei) the remembrance is 
regarded as proceeding from the object (Jelf 473). Hence 
we cannot say that the dative or accusative is ever used for 
the genitive or vice versa : logically, both cases are equally 
correct, and we have only to observe which of the construc- 
tions was more commonly used in the language,, or whether 
any one of them may have especially belonged to the later 
language (or to some particular writer), as evayyeXi^eaOai 
Tcva, 'Kpo<;KVve1v tlvl. 

Perhaps the most absurd instance of this kind of enallage would be 
2 C. vi. 4, crvvio-TCüVT€9 cttVTOi;? d)? B^ov Slolkovol, if Slolkovol stood for 
StttKoVovs. Here either the nominative or the accusative might be 
used, but they would express different relations. / recommend myself 
as a teacher (nominative) means, " I, in the office of teacher under- 
taken by me, recommend myself : " / recommend mi/self as a teacher 
(objective) is, " I recommend myself as one who wishes or who is 
able to be a teacher." 

3. Every case, as such, stands according to its nature in 
a necessary connexion wdth the construction of the sentence to 
which it belongs. The nominative and accusative cases, denot- 
ing respectively the subject and the object, have the most direct 
connexion with the sentence ; the genitive and dative express 
secondary relations. There are however casus absoluti, i. e. 
cases which are not interwoven w^ith the grammatical texture of 
the sentence, — which, so to speak, hover near the grammatical 

^ The distinction which Schsefer makes between these two constructions 
{Dem. V. 323) receives no confirmation trom the N. T. Compare further Matth. 
370. Rem. 4. 



sentence, and are only connected logically with the proposition 
it expresses. Of these the most frequent and the most decided 
examples are the nominativi absoluti (Bengel on Mt. xii. 36). 
Heal accusativi absoluti (§ 63. I. 2. d) ^ are more rare ; for 
what is called an accusative absolute is often dependent, though 
loosely, on the construction of the sentence. The genitivi and 
dativi absohiti are more regular members of the sentence, as 
a consideration of the meaning of these cases will show.^ 
The whole subject of the nominative absolute, however, must 
be treated in connexion with the structure of sentences [see 

Section XXIX. 
nominative and vocative. 

1. A noun considered directly and purely in itself is repre- 
sented by the nominative, either as subject or as predicate, 
according to the structure of the sentence : Jo. i. 1, iv ap^fj 
rjv 6 \6<yo<;' E. ii. 14, avro^ Icttlv rj elprjvr] yficov. 

Sometimes, however, we meet with a nominative which is 
not comprised in the structure of the sentence to which it 
belongs ; but either 

(a) Stands at the head of a sentence, as a kind of tliema 
(nominativus absolutus), as in A. vii. 40, o Mü)vari<i ovto<; . . . 
ovK o'iSafjLev tl yiyovev avroj (see § 28. 3) :^ — or 

(b) Is simply inserted in the sentence as a name (nominativus 
tituli), as if a mere (indeclinable) sound : Jo. xviii. 1 0, ^u ovofia 
Ta> Sov\(p MdX'^o^i' Eev. vi. 8, viii. 11, xix. 13 (Demosth. Macarf. 
669 b), L. xix. 29, 7rpo<; to 6po<; to KaXovfjbevov ^EXatwv ■.'^ 

^ Compare Fritz. Bom. III. 11 sq. 

2 See on the whole A. de Wannowski, Syntaxeos anowalce Grcpcce pars 
de constructione, quae dicitur, absoluta etc. (Lips. 1835) ; F. W. HoU'mann, Ob- 
eervata et monita de casibus absol. apud Grcecos et Lat. ita positis ut videantur 
non posse locum habere (liudiss. 1836), — the author treats only of the fjfenitive 
and dative absolute ; also J. Geisler, De Orcecoruni norninativis absol. (Vratisl. 
1845) ; and E. Wentzel, De (jen'dlvis et dat. absol. (Vratish 1828). [See Jelf 
477, 695, G99 sq., Clyde, Greek Synt. p. 144 sqq.] 

3 [See§ G3, I. 2. d, Jelf 477.] 

* Jn all the earlier editions and in Lachmann's we find i\cciüv. I cannot 
agree with Fritzsche [Mark, p. 794 s(i.] in prououncinf? this accentuation de- 
cidedly incorrect. J>y Luke, who <h;si<^ned his G()S{)el tor ibreign readers, the 
Mount of Olives, sufliciently well known in PalestiiK!, nii<rht very well be men- 
tioned for the first time as the so called Mount of Olives, just as in A. i. 12 : 
the phrase vfo{ to opos to Xiy. ikaiuv when resolved becomes to Xiy. i'pos ikatuy, 


compare 1 S. ix. 0, top Trpocpijrrjv eKoXet 6 Xao? efiirpoaOev 6 
ßXeiTöyv ]\ralal. 18. 482, 10. 247; see Lob. p. 517.^ Con- 
trast A. i. 12, airo 6pov<i tov KoXovfxevov 'EXat6ji'0(;. (Jelf 475. 
Ob.<^. 1.) 

Usually however, when the construction requires an oblique case, 
the writer expresses the name in this case (simply interposing 6v6- 
/xart), and thus brings the name into the regular construction of the 
sentence. See A. xxvii. 1, kKaTovTapxa oi/o/Aart 'lot-Xtw' ix. 11, 12, 
avSpa ^AvavLav ovofxaTL €t?cXöoi/Ta (xviii. 2, Mt. xxvii. 32, L, v. 27), A. 
xviii. 7, oiKta TU'o? ovo/xaTL ^lovarov ; also Mt. i. 21, 25, KaAc'crct? TO 
ovofxa avTov ^Itjctow, L. i. 13 (in apposition to ovo/xa) ; and even Mk. 
iii. 16, i-n-iO-qKcv ovofxa T(p ^l/jl^vl Herpov. — In Plut. Corlol. 11, different 
modes of expression are combined. 

In Rev. i. 4, the nominative o tov k. o yv k. 6 epxo/xcvo? (nin"', the 

UncJiangeahle One I), is designedly treated as an indeclinable noun ; 
see § 10. 

2. The nominative (with tlie article) is sometimes used in an 
address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking 
the place of the vocative, the case framed for such purposes.^ 
Examples of this usage, which really coincides with that men- 
tioned in 1 (a), are found in the IST. T.: Mt. xi. 26, vm, 6 irarrjp 
(i^ofioXoyov/jLai aot, ver. 25), on ourox; iyevero' H. i. 8, x. 7 (in 
the LXX compare Ps. xlii. 2, xxL 2); especially with an impera- 
tive, L. viii. 54, ?; Trat? eyeipe' Mt. xxvii. 29, x^^P^ ^ ßaatX€v<; 
T. 'lovB., Jo. xix. 3, Mk. v. 41, ix. 25, E. vi. 1, Col iii. 18, Eev. 
vi. 1 0. This mode of expression may have originally been some- 

ad montem qui dicitur olivarum, and hence the article would very naturally he 
omitted with ixoctuv. Perhaps, however, the translator of the Peshito Syriac 

read 'EXa/^v : in this passage his reading is (Zl»] A_»_!Ii> (;_DZ\iD5 |5qV> «"^s 
in A. i. 12 ; but in Mt. xxi, 1, xxiv. 3, al., for opo$ tZv IXa<&Jv, he has simply 
\t^\\ |3q_^. [What is here said of L. xix. 29 is also true of L. xxi. 37 : the 
latter verse is thus quoted by Tertullian {adv. Marc. 4. 39), *'Sed enim per 
diem in teraplo docebat ; ad noctem vero in elceoncm seeedebat. " The argument 
from the Syriac Version is somewhat weakened by the fact that the translator 
introduces A_»_C2 ("mons loci olivarum," instead of "mons olivarum ") not only 
in L. xix. 29, xxi. 37, A. i. 12, but also in L. xix. 37, xxii, 39 (r. op. rZi 
sx«/wv). Lachmann is wrongly quoted above in favour of I'ka.tuv. in botli 
editions he reads -uv, which form most editors (but not Westcott and Hort) 
now receive in the two passages referred to. AVith A. i. 12 compare Joseph. 
Ant. 7. 9. 2 ; with L. xix. 29, Ant. 20. 8. 6, Bdl. Jud. 2. 13. 5 (Grimm, Clavis 
s. v.). — A striking example of the nominat. tituli is found in Jo. xiii. 13 ; see 
also Rev. ix. 11.] 

^ So even rhv av^pu-roroKos (puvrtv, Theodoret IV. 1304 ; rhv 6ios 
•rpeiny^p'ia.v. III. 241, IV. 454. In such cases the Eomans always use the 
genitive, — a fact which is usuallv overlooked by modern writers of Latin. 

•■» Fischer, Welkr III. 1. 319 sq. ; Markland, Eur. Iph. Aul. 446. [Jelf 
76. 6, Green pp. 9, 85.] 


what rough and harsh (Bernh. p. 67), and may even retain this 
character wherever it is used by the Greek prose writers ; but 
in later Greek it is found where there is no special emphasis, 
even in very gentle address (L, xii. 32, /jlt) <f>oßov, to /nLKpov 
rroLfjLviov viii. 54, Bar. iv. 5), and in prayers (L. xviii. 11, H. 
X. 7). Jo. XX. 2.8, however, though directed to Jesus (elirev 
avTo)), is yet rather an exclamation than an address : ^ such 
nominatives appear early and very distinctly in Greek writers 
(Bernh. I.e., Kriig. p. 14, Jelf 476. Obs.). Similarly in L. xii. 
20 (with the reading ä(j>pcov, — also 1 C. xv. 3 6, where there is not 
much authority for acppov); in Ph. iii. 18, 19, ir&Wol <yap irepi- 
TrarovcTLv, ou? TroXXa/ci? eXeyov . . . tol»? i'^Opov^ rod aravpov 
Tou Xpcarov, dtv to xeXo? dircoXeia . . . ol tcl eir [yeia <ppo~ 
vovvT€<i;'^ and perhaps in Mk. xii. 38-40, ßXeireTe airo tcov 
ypa/jL/jLaT€cov, twv OekouTcov . . . koI acnraafiov<; . . . koI irpco- 
T0Kad€SpLa<; . . . ol KaTeaOlovTe^ to.^ oiKLa<;' . , . . ovtol 
Xrj-yjrovTac irepicraoTepov Kplfxa' though here ol KaTeadlov- 
T€9 might be joined with ovtol \r)y^ovTaL^ In Eev. xviii. 20 
the vocative and the nominative are found in connexion. 

3. The vocative however is used by the IST. T. writers in 
addresses much more frequently than the nominative. It is 
sometimes accompanied by &>, but more commonly stands alone. 
Tl occurs only in addresses (A. i. 1, xxvii. 21, xviii. 14, 1 Tim. 
vi. 11), mostly in connexion with an adjuration or an expression 
of blame ^ (Rom. ii. 1, 3, ix. 20, L Tim. vi. 20, Ja. ii. 20, G. 
iii. 1), or in exclamations, as L. xxiv. 25, A. xiii. 10. A simple 
call or summons is expressed by the vocative without w: L. xiii. 
12, xxii. 57, [Acts] xxvii. 10, Mt. ix. 22, Jo. iv. 21, xix., 26, A. 
xiii. 1 5, xxvii. 25. Even at the beginning of a speech, where- 

' On this verso soe Alford and Westcott ; soe also Creen p. 88.] 

2 [Connpare Ellicott in ioc, wlio explains this "as an emphatic return to the 
primary construction of the sentence {-roXXoi yxp -riptT.):" see further Alford 
in loc, and below § 63 I. 2. In Mk. xii. 40 liongel, Meyer, Lachm., Tisch., 
Treg. , Westcott and Hort, join ol Kantr^iovn; with oSroi : the other connexion 
is d(!f(;nd(;d by Alford and A. Huttrnaiin (p. 71)).] 

' II(;rrnann says {/*r(rf. ad Muiip. Androm. p. 1.5 sq.) : mihi quidem ubique 
nominativiis, (lucm pro vocativo ])Osituin volunt, non vocaiitis sod decdarantis 
esse videtur : o tu, qui es talis. 'J'his would iipply to soini; of the above pas- 
.sages, but not to all, and the remark is probably intended to refer directly to 
the j)Octs only. 

* Lob. Ajax 451 sq. : see Fritzsohe, Ari.sfoph. I. 4. 


the Greeks regularly prefix &>, the vocative commonly stands by 
itself in the N. T. : as A. i. IG, ii. 14, iii. 12, xiii. IG, xv. 13. 
(See however Franke, Dcmosth. p. 193.) ^ 

An adjective joined to a vocative stands in the same case, as Ja. 
ii. 20, w av6pw7re Keve- Jo. xvii. 11, Mt. xviii. 32.'-^ On words in 
apposition to a vocative see § 59. 8 (Jelf 476. c, d).^ 

Kera. It has been supposed, but erroneously, that the N. T. 
writers sometimes use Hebraistic periphrases for the nominative 
case : namely, 

a. Ets with the accusative, in the phrase eij/at or ytVco-öat cts 
TL (Leusden, Diall. p. 132). By far the greater number of the 
examples adduced occur in quotations from the 0. T., or in O. T. 
expressions which had become estabhshed formulas (Mt. xix. 5, 1 C. 
vi. 16, E. V. 31, H. viiL 10, al.). Two facts, moreover, have been 
overlooked. In the first place, ytveaOaL ets tl, fieri i.e. ahire (mutari) 
in aliq. (A. v. 36, Jo. xvi. 20, Rev. viii. 11) is a correct expression 
in Greek ^ (as in German), and is used, at all events by later writers, 
even in reference to persons (Geo. Pachymer. I. 345, ets a-vixfxdxov^ 
avTOLs yivovTai). Again, in the Hebrew phrase rendered by etvat ets 
Tt, the preposition h is not really an indication of the nominative, but 
answers to our to or for {to serve fur, tiirn to) : see H. viii. 10, 1 C. 
xiv. 22, and compare Wis. ii. 14, Acta Apocr. 169. In 1 C. iv. 3, 
€/x,ot CIS IXd^icTTov ia-TLv means, to me, for me, it belongs to the least, 
the most insignificant thing (with such a thing I associate it) : A. xix. 
27, as ovhlv koyLaOrjvat, is similar, to be reckoned for nothing (Wis. ix. 
6 ^). In L. iL 34, Ketrat cis tttCjo-lv, the preposition is similarly used 
to express destination, and there is no departure from Greek analogy, 
see Ph. i. 17 (16), 1 Th. iii. 3 : compare ^sop 24. 2, eis fxeL^ovd 
a-oL ox^e'Xetav IcroiiaL' and the Latin auxilio esse.^ See further § 32. 
4. b. 

^ On w before the vocative see, in general, Doberenz, Prog. Hildhurgh. 
(1844). [" Not only is Z rarely joined to the vocative in the N. T. (only 16 
times in all), but in most of these instances it is more than a mere sign of 
the vocative, inasmuch as the expression has an emphatic character, and is 
therefore rather an exclamation, than a simple address." A. Buttm. p. 140. 
The same writer I'efers to this peculiarity as a result of Latin influence {Index, 
s. V. Latinismen). Jelf 479. 2.] 

^ But compare Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 466. 

^ [" The interjections l^oü and (especially in John) even 111, answering 
to the Latin ecce and en, are joined with a nominative. The frequent occur- 
rence of these words in narration and in argument must not be attributed 
to the influence of the 0. T. alone, but was a feature of the popular language ; 
hence they become more and more common at a later period." A. Buttm. 
p. 139.] 

* Georgi, Virid. 337, Schwarz, Coram. 285. [Liddell and Scott, s. v. y/yvs^aa/ : 
compare Jelf 62.5. 3. c] 

* Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 33, ;^p'jaaTa lU afy-jptov Xo'yiZ,i(r^oti, is of a different kind 
(Jelf 625. 3. c). 

6 Zumpt, Or. § 664. Note 1. [Madvig, Lat. Or. 249, Roby, Lat. Gr. 11. 
xxv-lvi. ] 


h. 'Ev with the dative, as an imitation of the Hebrew Beth 
essentice,^ in the following passages : Mk. v. 25, ywrj ns ovTa Iv pvaet 
at/zaro? ; Hev. i. 10, iyevofxrjv iv TrvcvfxaTi iv rfj KvpiaKfj yjfxepa (Glass 
I. 31); E. V. 9, 6 KapTTo? Tov cf)0)To<; iv iraar] ayaOoicrvvrj (Hartmann, 
Linguist. Einl. 384) ; and Jo. ix. 30, iv rovna Oavfiao-rov icrn 
(Schleusner, s. v. iv). But in Mk. v. etvat iv pva-ct is to be in the 
condition or state of an issue ; in Rev. i. ytveo-Oai iv means 
in the spirit^ to he present somewhere ; in E, v. cTi/at iv is equivalent 
to contineri, positum esse in (see the commentators) ; and Jo. ix. 
may be very appropriately rendered, herein is this marvellous, etc. 
Gesenius has attributed the same construction to Latin and Greek 
writers, but without reason ; elvai iv (robots, i7i magnis viris (haben- 
dum) esse, cannot be brought in here, for this combination is perfectly 
natural, and must be rendered to belong to the number of. If iv (TO(f)i^ 
or in sapienti tiro were used for aocfio? or sapiens, then and then only 
could iv or in be said to represent a Beth essentim. But no rational 
being could use words thus, and indeed the whole doctrine of the 
Hebrew Bdh essentice is a mere figment, an invention of empirical 
grammarians :^ see my edition of Simonis p. 109, and Fritz. Mark, 
p. 291 sq.4 

Section XXX. 


1. The genitive is unquestionably the whence-case, the case 
oi proceeding from or out of : ^ it is most clearly recognised as 
such when joined with words which denote an activity, conse- 
quently with verbs. Its most common and familiar application 
in prose, however, is in connecting two substantives, where 
(with a gradually increased latitude of meaning) it denotes any 

' Gosen. L(jh. ]). 8:58, Knobol on Is. xxviii. 16. [Gesen. Hehr. Gr. p. 241, 
Thesaur. p. 174, Kaliscli, Jiebr. Gr. II. 296.] 

^ [Or in the Spirit. Winer connects lyivo/üctjv with Iv <r? Kvpiaxr, y!/u,ipx, pro- 
])ably in the sense, '* Diem judicii vidi in spiritu." Against tliis, see Diisterdieck 
and Alford in loc] 

•* With t}ie entirely misunderstood {<^n ^"'3, 1-x. xxxii. 22, compare Ml. 

T : 

10. 11, a.<7fo6a,n~iD «v ku.'Km iffriv: slioiild this too be taken for xxXov itmv'i 
[Winer renders Kx. I. c, "in nialo (in wickedness) est, h. e. malus est ;" similarly 

* Haab's other examples (p. 337 sq.) are so manifestly untenable that we 
cannot give tlx'in a moment's notice. 

* Compare JIartung, (Jatius ]>. ]2. [Don. p. 464, (Mydo, Gr. Synt. pp. 30 sq. 
On the name of this case see Max Müller, Lectures on Language, 1. 105 sq.] 


kind of dependence on or lelovging to} as in o Kvpio<i rov 
Koafiov, 'IouSa9 'laKcoßov: liere a pronoun or the article may 
take the place of the governing noun, compare § 18. 3. This 
use of the genitive, associated even in plain prose with a 
great variety of meanings,^ we shall consider first. Besides 
the ordinary cases — amongst which the genitive of quality 
(Kom. XV. 5, 13, al.) and the partitive genitive (Eom. xvi. 5, 
1 C. xvi. 15) should be specially mentioned^ — we have to 

a. The genitive of the object, after substantives which denote 
an internal or external activity, — a feeling, expression, action 
(Krug. p. 86, Don. p. 482, Jelf 542. ii.): Mt. xiii. 18, irapaßoXrj 
Tou aireipovTo^ the soicer-paraUe, i.e. the parable about the 
sower; 1 C. i. 6, ixaprvptov tgO Xpio-rov, witness concerning 
Christ (ii. 1, compare xv. 15) ; viii. 7, ^ crvv€LS7]cn<; rod elBcoXov, 
their consciousness of the idol; i. 18, o X0709 rov oravpov; 
Mt. xxiv. 6, cLKoal TroXefitov vjar-rumonrs (rumours ahout wars), 
compare Matth. 342. 1 ; A. iv. 9, evepyedia avOpwirov, towards 
or to a man (Thuc. 1. 129, 7. 57, Plat. Legg. 8. 850 b) ; Jo. vii. 
13, XX. 19, </)o^o? 'lovSaleov, fear of the Jews (Eur. Andr, 
1059) ; xvii. 2, e^ovala irdarj<; crapKof;, over all flesh (Mt. x. 1, 
1 C. ix. 12) ; 2 P. ii. 13, 15, /jll(t6o<; aSiKia<;, reward for un- 
righteousness ; Eom. X. 2, frjXo? 6eov, zeal for God (Jo. ii. 
17, 1 Mace. ii. 58, — otherwise in 2 C. xi. 2); H. ix. 15, 
a7ro\vTpcoat<; rcov irapaßdijewv, sin-redemption, i.e. redemption 
from sins (Plat. Be]?. 1. 329 c). Compare also Mt. xiv. 1 
(Joseph. Antt. 8. 6. 5), L. vi. 12 (Eurip. Troad. 895), E. ii. 
20 [?], Rom. XV. 8, 2 P. i. 9, Ja. ii. 4,' 1 C. xv. 15, H. 
X. 24.' 

^ If we consider the genitive with reference to its abstract meaning rather 
than to its origin, its nature may be thus defined (Herrn. Opusc. I. 175, and 
Vig. p. 877) : " Genitivi proprium est id indicare, cujus quid aliquo quocumque 
modo accidens est ;" compare De Emend. Bat. p. 139. Similarly Madvig, § 46. 
See further Schneider on Caesar, Bell. Gall. 1. 21. 2. [Eost's definition resembles 
Hermann's: Jelf regards the genitive as the case which expresses "the ante- 
cedent notion" (471, 480).] 

2 Schsefer, Eurip. Or. 48. 

^ [On the genitive of quality see Don. p. 482, Jelf 48.5 ; on ihe partitive geni- 
tive, Don. p. 470 sq., Jelf 533 and 542. vi. : on the objective genitive in the 
N. T., Green, Gr. p. 87 sq., Webster, Syntax 1^. 72.] 

* [This passage is also noticed below, p. 233. In ed. 5 "Winer maintained 
the simpler view that lnt\. is a genitive of quality ("ill-bethinking judges," 
Green p. 91) ; see Alford, Webster and Wilk., in loc.'] 

^ For examples from Greek authors see Markland, Eur. Siippl. 838, D'OrviUe, 


The following phrases are of frequent recurrence in the IST. T. : 
dyaTTT) rod Oeov or Xpcarov, love to God, to Christ, Jo. v. 42, 

1 Jo. ii. 5, 15, iii. 17, 2 Th. iii. 5 (but not Eom. v. 5, viii. 35, 

2 C. V. 14, E. iii. 19 ^) ; (j)6ßo<; 6eov or Kvplov, A. ix. 31, Eom. 
iii. 18, 2 C. V. 11, vii. 1, E. v. 21 ; wlarL^; rod deov, XpcaTov, 
or 'Irjaov, Mk. xi. 22, Eom. iii. 22, G. ii. 16, iii. 22, E. iii. 12, 
Ph. iii. 9, Ja. ii. 1, Eev. xiv. 12 (Tr/o-Tt? a\r]e^ia<;, 2 Th. ii. 13) ; 
viraKOT] rod Xpiarov or Trj<; Tr/crTeci)? k.t.X., 2 C. x. 5, Eom. i. 5, 
xvi. 26, 1 P. i. 22 (2 C. ix. 13). But hiKaioavvr] 6eov in the 
dogmatic language of Paul (Eom. i. 17, iii. 21 sq., x. 3, al.) is, 
in accordance with his doctrine of ^eo? o BitcaiMv (compare iii. 
30, iv. -5), God's righteousness, i.e. righteousness which God 
bestows (on man) ; and, the meaning once fixed, SiKatoawr) Oeov 
could even be used (in 2 C. v. 21) as a predicate of the believers 
themselves. Others, with Luther, understand the phrase to 
mean righteousness which avails before God (quse Deo satis- 
facit, Eritz. Rom. I. 47), BcKatoauvT] nrapa tm 6e(p. The possi- 
bility of this interpretation is implied in SLKaco<; Trapa toj deot, 
Eom. ii. 13 (set over against SiKacouaOai), and still more 
directly in Bt/catovcrdaL Trapa t« 6eS G. iii. 11, or ivcoTnov tov 
Oeov Eom. iii. 20. Erom the nature of the SiKaLovcrOat both 
expressions are correct ; but BoKaool 6 6eo<; tov äp6pco7rov is the 
more stringent of the two, and in Eom. x. 3 we obtain a better 
antithesis if Slk. Oeov is righteousness which God grants : com- 
pare also Ph. iii. 9, y e/c Oeov BiKaioavvT)? 

From what has just been said it will be clear that in many pas- 
sages the decision between the subjective and the objective genitive 
belongs to exegesis, not to grammar : the question especially requires 
a cautious use of parallel passages. In Ph. iv. 7, dprivr] Oeov can 
probably have no other meaning than peace (peace of soul) which God 
gives, as the wish which the apostles express for their reailers is that 
they may have elfnjvqv utto Oeov : this parallelism is more decisive 
here than that of Eom. v. 1, dprjvrjv exofiev vrpos tov Oeov, which would 
lead us to render dpyjvq Oeov peace with God. In Col. iii. 15 also 
(dprjvrj Xpurrov) I consider the genitive to be subjective ; compare 
Jo. xiv. 27. That in Eom. iv. 13 StKaioo-uVr; Trta-rctus (one notion, — 

Ohar. p. 498, Rchaef. Soph. II. 300, Stallb. Tlat. Jiep. II. 201, Apol. p. 29, 
Por)])0, Thuc. III. i. 521. 

^ [See Alford's note on 2 C. v. 14. On the nature of the genitive after 
«r/o-T/j, see Kllicott and Lij^'htfoot on Col. ii. 12.] 

* [See AHoid and Vauglian on Item. i. 17.] 


failh-ri<jhleou,mess) mcsins righteousness which faith brings, is manifest 
from the expression more frequently used, r; ^iKaioavvr] t; Ik TrurT-cw? 
(Rom. ix. 30, X. 6). In E. iv. 18 {aTrrjWoTpMfiivot) t^? ^oif/s tou Oeov 
is God's life: tlie life of Christian believers is so called, as being a 
life imparted by God, excited within the soul by liim. 

In the phrase ivayyiXtov tou Xpio-rov it may appear doubtful 
whether the ij;enitive should be considered subjective (the Gospel 
preached by Christ) or objective (the Gospel concerning Christ). I 
prefer the latter, because we find in some ])assages (e. g. Rom. i. 3 i) 
the complete expression ^vj.yyi\iov rev 6cov nepl tov vIüv aurov, of 
which this may be merely an abridgment : compare also evuyyiXtov 
T7/S x^P^7-09 rov dcov A. XX. 24, and evayyiXiov r^s /3ao-(Aeta9 tov Oeov 
Mt. iv. 23, ix. 35. Meyer (on Mk. i. 1) regards the genitive in this 
phrase as sometimes subjective, sometimes objective.^ In Col. ii. 18 
also it is a matter of dispute amongst the commentators whether 
{Opr)(7Kua) dyyeAwv is a genitive of the subject or of the object. The 
latter view is preferable, reverence of angels, angel-worship : compare 
Euseb. //. E. 6. 41 v. l, Oprja-Kua. rwv Sacfxovoiv Philo II. 259, Oprja. 
öewi/, (rj TOV Oeov Aarpcta, Plat. Jpol. 23. c). In 1 Tim. iv. 1 Sai/xoi/tojv/ 
is certainly a subjective genitive : in H. vi. 2 however, ßairTicrp.^v 
StSax^?, if the latter be regarded as the principal noun (see below, 
3. Rem. 4), ßaTTTicrfxCjv can only be the object of the ScSaxri- In Rom. 
viii. 23 it seems better, according to the mode in which Paul presents 
the subject, to regard dTroAvVpuJo-t? rov a-dip^aTo^ as liberation of the body 
(namely from the ^ovXda ttj^ <^Oopa<s spoken of in ver. 21), than as 
liberation from the body. Likewise in H. i. 3, 2 P. i. 9, KaOaptap-o^ 
TU)v dfxapTLiüv might signify purification of sins (removal of sins, com- 
pare Dt. xix. 13), as the Greeks could say KaOapi^ovTat at d^aprtat 
(comp. KaOaipeiv alfxa to remove through cleansing, Iliad 16. 667) ; but 
it is simpler to take tcüv d/x,. as a genitive of the object.^ Rom. ii. 7, 
vTTopiovr] epyov dyaOov, and 1 Th. i. 3, vtto/xovt) t^s cA.7rt8o?, mean very 
simply, constancy or steadiness of good work, of hope. Ja. ii. 4 is 
probably an indignant question : then . . . would ye not become judges 
of evil thoughts (your own) % 

^ [This is the only passage in which this expression occurs, and here it is 
probable that inpi r. vl. uv. belongs to the verb «r^asT. in ver. 2 : so Meyer, 
Fritz., Alford, al.] 

2 [" When the genitive with ilxyyiXie^ does not denote a person, this genitive 
is always that of the object ; in ivayy. hov, tvayy. f^ov, the genitive expresses 
the subject. In tiayy. XpitrTod the genitive may be either subjective {gtnilivus 
auctoris) or objective ; the context alone can decide." (Meyer I.e.) I cannot 
however find any passage in which Meyer does not regard this phrase as meaning 
" the gospel concerning Christ" {genit. o6/. ). ] 

3 [In H. i. 3 the rendering "purification of sins" (where the genitive is 
surely objective) is adopted by Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and was prel erred by 
"Winer in ed. 5 : compare Mt. viii. 3. Lünemann (ed. 3) and Kurtz render the 
words " purification from sins," comparing the use of xa^«/>es with a genitive 
(Don. p. 468, Jelf 529). ] 


2. h. But the genitive is also used to express more remote 
relations of dependence/ and in this way are formed, by a kind 
of breviloquence, various composite terms (such as Uood-of-the- 
cross, repeniance-haptism, damage-law), the resolution of which 
will vary according to the nature of the component notions. 
"We notice 

a. The genitive which expresses relations merely external 
(relations of place or of time) : Mt. x. 5, oho^ iOvcov Gentiles 
road, i. e. road to the Gentiles (H. ix. 8, compare Gen. iii. 24, 
7] oho^ T. ^vkov Trj<; fa)>}9* Jer. ii. 18, Judith v. 14) ; ^ Jo. x. 7, 
6vpa TÜv TTpoßdrcov, door to the sheep (Meyer) ; Mt. i. 11, 12, 
fieroLKeala BaßvXoüvo^, removal to Babylon (Orph. 200, eVt 
itXoov ' A^eLvoio, ad ex2')editionem in Axinum ; 144, v6aTo<; oX- 
Koio, domumreditus ; Eurip. 7p^. T. 1066 ^) ; Jo. vii. 35, 17 ha- 
cTTTopa Twv 'EX\.i]Vü)v, the d/ispersion (the dispersed) among the 
Greeks ; Mk. viii. 27, KWfiai Kaiaapela^ rrjf; ^Cklirirov, villages 
around Caesarea Philippi, villages which are situated on its 
territory * (Is. xvii. 2 ^) ; Col. i. 20, aljxa tqv aravpov, hlood of 
the cross, i. e. blood shed on the cross ; 1 P. i. 2, pavTL(Tfjio<; 
aip^aro^, sprinkling (purifying) with hlood ; 2 C. xi. 26, KivhwoL 
TTOTa/jLüJv, perils on rivers (soon followed by klvS. iv iroXeu, ev 
OaXdaar], k.tX.), compare Heliod. 2. 4. 65 icivBvvoc OaXaaacov. 

Designations of time : Eom. ii. 5 (Zeph. ii. 2) rj/juepa 6pj7]<;, 
day ofiu7'ath, i. e. day on which the wrath (of God) will manifest 
itself in punislunent : Jude 6, Kplen^ /jbeyakrjf; f)/LL6pa<;, judgment 
on the great day ; L. ii. 44, 0809 rj/^epa^, a day s journey (dis- 
tance traversed in a -day, compare Her. 4. 101, Ptol. 1. 11. 4) ; 
H. vi. 1, 6 T^9 «p%^? Tou Xpiarov X0709, the elementary in- 

1 Compare Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 108 sq., Stallb. Tlat. Tim. p. 241 sq., Beruh, 
p. 160 sf|q. 

'^ In Mt. iv. 15, however, o^«f ^etkcHtrfftis certainly means ivay by the sea (of 
Tiberias). [See below, )). 289.] 

'^ Compare Schfcf. MeleL p. 90, Seidlcr, Eur. Ekcfr. 161, Spohn, Isocr. Paneg. 
p. 2, Buttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 67. The genitive lias the o])posite meaning in 
Plat. Apol. 40 c, fJt,troiK>]ffis rvit ^t/^yii Tov rsTov rov iv^sv^s {away J^rom this 

* I'his reduces itself finally to the common topographical genitive (Kriig. p. 
32 sq.), — which is sinij^y a genitive of belonr/irnj to: Jo. ii. 1, Kava t^j r«- 
XikaiKf' A. xxii. 3, Txpiroi tyu KikiKia;- xiii. 13, 14 [/iVc], xxvü. 5, L. iv. 26 : 
compare Xen. JfeU. 1. 2. 12, Diod. S. 16. 92, 17. 03, Diog. L. 8. 3, Arrian, Al. 
2. 4. 1 ; and see Kllcndt, Arr. Al. I. 151, liamshorn, Lat. Or. 1. 167. (Don. 
p. 482, Jelf 542. vi.) 

^ [This reference is incorrect : probably, Jos. xvii. 11.] 


struct ion of Christ ; so also TeKfJLi]pia ij/xepajv Teaa-apuKovra, A. 
i. 3, according to the reading of 1).^ 

An external relation (of place) is also indicated in aXcißaarpov 
fjLvpov ]\Ik. xiv. 3, and Kepafiiov vSaro^ ver. 13 ; compare 1 S. 
X. 3, ciyjeta aprcov, uaKo^ ol'vov Sopli. 7i7. 758, '^aXKO'; 
Girohoi)''^ Dion. H. lY. 2028, acr^aXrou kol tt/o-ctt;? d'yyela' 
Tbeophr. Ch. 17, Diog. L. 6. 9, 7. 3, Lucian, Asin. 37, Fuffit. 
31, Diod. S. Vatic. 32. 1. To the same class belongs Jo. xxi. 8, 
TO Slktvov TCÜV l'^6vcov (ill ver. 11, fiearov I'^Ovcov), and even 
ayeXrj '^oipcov Mt. viii. 30, and eKarov ßaroc iXatov L. xvi. C. 
On this genitive of content, see Krug. p. 37 sq. (Don. p. 468, 
Jelf 542. vii.) 

In no passage of the N. T. is dvao-rao-i? vcKpcov equivalent to avda-r. 
eK v€KpQ)v : even in Kom. i. 4 it signifies the resurrection of the dead 
absolutely and generically, though this resurrection is actually 
realised in one individual only. Philippi's dogmatic inference from 
this expression is mere trifling. 

ß. The genitive is used, especially by John and Paul, to ex- 
press an inner reference of a remoter kind : Jo. v. 29, apdaTaat<; 
fö)^9, KpLa€co<;, resurrection of life, resurrection of judgment, 
i. e. resurrection to life, to judgment (genitive of destination, 
Theodor. IV. 1140, lepcoavvr]^ '^eiporovla to the jpriesthood ; 
compare Eom. viii. 36, from the LXX, irpoßara a<^a<yr}^) ; 
Eom. V. 18, BLKai(oat<i ^Q)rj<;, justification to life; Mk. i. 4, ßd- 
Trria/jLa fxeravoLa^;, rejjentance-haptisni, i. e. baptism which binds 
to repentance ; Rom. vii. 2, v6/jLo<; tov dvBpo^, the law of the 
hushcind, i. e. the law which determines the relation to the hus- 
band (compare Dem. Mid. 390 a, 6 rrj<; ßXdßr]^ v6pLo<^, the law 
of damage, and many examples in the LXX, as Lev. xiv. 2, 6 
vopio^ TOV Xeirpov' vii. 1, xv. 32, Num. vi. 13, 21, see Fritz. 
Rom. XL 9) ; vi. 6, awfia tt}? dfiaprlaf;, sin-hody, i. e. body which 
belongs to sin, in which sin has being and dominion (in which 
sin carries itself into effect), almost like awjia r?}? GapKo<^, Col. 
i. 22, body in which fleshliness has its being and its hold; Eom. 
vii. 24, cTtoyLta tov OavaTov tovtov, hody of this death, i. e. which 
(in the way described in ver. 7 sqq.) leads to death, ver. 5, 10, 
13. See further Tit. iii. 5. 

' Others with less probability take the words rifjufuv T-vaap. by them- 
selves, throughout forty dmjs (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 640 sq.) ; but see below, 
no. 11. 

2 See Schsefer on Long. Past. p. 386. 


Ill L. xi. 29, TO a-rjfjLCLov 'Iwva is nothing else than the sign which 
was once exhibited in Jonah (which is now to be repeated in the 
person of Christ). Jude 1 1 must be simiLarly explained. In Jo. xix. 
14, however, Trapaa-Kevr] tov Tracrxa does not mean "preparation-day 
for the passover," but quite simply ''the preparation-day ^ of the 
passover " (that which belongs to the paschal feast). In H. iii. 13, 
aTrdrr) Trjs d/xaprias, the genitive is subjective and afxaprta is personi- 
fied (Rom. vii. 11, al.). But in 2 Th. ii. 10 aTrdrr] Tri<; dSiJcta? is deceit 
which leads to unrighteousness. OnE. iv. 18 see Mever; on Ja. i. 17, 
De Wette. 2 

In E. iii. 1, 2 Tim. i. 8, Phil. i. 9, SeV/xtos Xpia-Tov is a prisoner of 
Christ, i. e. one whom Christ (the cause of Christ) has brought into 
captivity and retains in it;^ compare Wis. xvii. 2. In Ja. ii. 5, oi 
TTTwxoi TOV Koa-fxov (if the reading is correct) signifies the poor of the 
world, i. e. those who in their position towards the koctixo^ are poor, 
hence j90or in earthly goods (though it does not follow from this that 
K6(Tfxo<; itself denotes earthly goods). In Jo. vi. 45, StSaKTol tov Oeov 
means God's instructed ones, i.e. instructed by God, like ol evXoyrjfxivoL 
TOV TTarpd? Mt. XXV. 34, the Father's blessed ones, i.e. those blessed by 
the Father (Jelf 483. Obs. 3). In E. vi. 4, 11, 13, Kvptov and Oeov 
are genitivi auctoris, as also tmv ypa<^wv Rom. xv. 4. Likewise in Ph. 
i. 8, Iv a-TvXdy^oL'i XpiaTov 'I, the genitive is to be taken as sub- 

^ [I venture to substitute "Rust-tag" day of preparation, for "Euhetag" 
day of rest, as this latter word — though found in four editions of the German 
work — must surely be a misprint. In his RWB. (II. 341), "Winer renders 
'^a.fa.tnciim tov -Trna-x^a. " Ilüsttag auf Ostern," preparation-day for the passover 
^" 14th of Nisan"), and on p. 205 of the same work sa3's that this is the only 
meaning which the words could of themselves convey to a Greek reader : 
similarly in his tract on the IiTtvov of Jo. xiii. (p. 12). The object of the 
remarks in the text seems to be to show that, whilst this is the meaning, toZ 
'ra.<rx,cc is simply a possessive genitive.] 

* [" It seems now generally agreed that by ru ^uroc here is meant the heavenly 
bodies, and by tät'/;/) the creator, originator : " Alford in loc.^ 

' As in Phil. 13 %i(rfjt.oi roZ ilocyyixiov means bonds which the Gospel has 
brought. Without reference to this parallel passage, Vifffnos Xp. might be 
rendered a prisoner who belongs to Christ. Others render, a prisorier for Christ's 
sake: this mode of resolving the genitive (Matth, 371 c, Kriig. p. 37, Jelf 481) 
lias been applied to many N. T. passages, but in every case incorrectly. In 
H, xiii. 13, TOV ovithifff/.ov Xpta-Tov (pipovTis means, bearing the reproach which 
Christ bore (and still bears). So also in 2 C. i. 5, ^ipta-cnvu to, 'ra.(r,[jt,«.Tce, roZ 
Xp. us rifAoi;, the sufferings which Christ had to endure, namely, I'rom the 
enemies of the Divine truth, abundantly come (anew) on us ; for the suH'erings 
which b(;li('.v(;rs endure (for the sake of the Divine truth) are essentially one 
with the sufferings of Christ, and but a continuation of them : compare Ph. 
iii. 10, Col. i. 24, «< öki\Ptis tou Xpia-Tov, and 2 C. iv. 10, are probably to 
be explained in the same way. On the former jiassagc-, which has been very 
variously (txplained, see Lücke, Progr. in loc. Col. i. 24 (Gutting. 1833) p. 12 sq., 
also Huthcr and Meyer m loc. [Lücke takes XpidTou here as genit. auctoris; 
Meyer and Liglitfocjt consider the genitive possessive, in the sense explained 
above. Lllicott and Alford agree with De Wette and Olshausen in explaining 
the afflictions of C/irist to mean, the ulUictions which he endurea in His 
Church, j 


jectivo, though opinions may diffor as to tho more procise nature of 
the relation. Compare also K.W. i, and Meyer in loc} In 1 P. iii. 
21 the correct explanation does not depend so much on tlie genitive 
o-ui/€t8>;rT€(jü? ayaBrj^ as on the meaning of cVepojny/xa : ^ the rend(;ring 
spomio may suit the context very well, but neither l)e Wette nor 
Huther has shown that it is philologically admissible. On H. ix. 11 
see Bleek.^ In 1 C. i. 27 rov Koa/xov is a subjective genitive : see 
Meyer. In 1 C. x. IG to TroTrjpiov t. cuAoyca? very simply means cup 
of the blessing, i.e. over which the blessing is pronounced ; and in 
ver. 21 TTOTtjpcov Kvpiov is cup of the Lord, where the more exact' 
reference of the genitive is supplied by ver. 16, as in Col. ii. 11 
(Xp6o-Tov) by ver. 14."* On Col. i. 14 Meyer's decision is correct. In 
A. xxii. 3 voixov depends on Kara aKplßuav. 

In H. iii. 3, some join the genitive oIkov to n/xrjv, greater honour of 
the house (i.e. in the house): this is not in itself impossible, but for 
this Epistle it is harsh, and it is certainly oj^posed to the writer's aim ; 
see Bleek in loc. 

On the genitive of apposition, as ttoXci? ^oSo/^wv koX Vofx6ppa<s 2 P. 
ii. 6 (urbs Bomce), ar^ixdov irepiTopirj^ Rom. iv. 11, see § 59. 8 (Jelf 
435. d). 

3. For a long time it was usual to regard the genitive of 
kindred (Mxipta 'laKcoßov, 'JouSa? 'LaKooßov, ^daulB 6 rov 'Jecr- 
aai) as involving an ellipsis. As however the genitive is the 
case of dependence, and as every relationship is a kind of de- 
pendence, there is no essential notion wanting (Herrn. Ellips. 
p. 120): only it is left to the reader to define more exactly, in 
accordance with the actual fact, that which the genitive ex- 
presses quite generally (Plat. Rep. 3. 408 b). This genitive is 
most commonly to be understood of son or daughter, as in Mt. 
iv. 21, Jo. vi. 71, xxi. 2, 15, A. xiii. 22. In L. xxiv. 10, Mk. xv. 
47, xvi. 1, fJL-nrrjp must be supplied, — compare Mt. xxvii. 56, 
Mk. XV, 40 (^lian 16. 30, 'OXu/zTrm? r) ''AXe^dvZpov, sc. prjrr^p). 
ITarrip, in A. vii. 16 [i^ec], 'Eppcop rod ^v^epu (compare Gen. 
xxxiii. 19): similarly Steph. Byz. (s.v. AaihaXa), rj ttoXl^; aird 
AaihaXov rov ^iKcipov. Tvvt], in Mt. i. 6, e/c t>}? rov Ovplov, 

' [Meyer regards the genitive in Ph. i. 8 as possessive ; in E. vi. 4 {Tuttüa. 
Ktt) vove-tr'ia. Kvpiou), as genit. subjecti : see Ellic. U. cc, who takes the same view 
of each passage. ] 

* [Winer renders this (in ed. 5) " the inquiry of a good conscience after 
God : " comp, below, 3. Rem. 5. See Alford in loc] 

^ [Bleek takes t. f^^kx. ay. as a genitive oi reference ox dependence ; Delitzsch, 
Hofm., Alf., as genitivus objecti.] 

* [This reference and the next seem incorrect ; perhaps we should read 
Ter. 12, and Col. iii. 14.] 


and in Jo. xix. 25 :^ compare Aristopli. Eccl. 46, Plin. Epp. 2. 
20, Verania Pisonis. 'A8e\(f>6<; is perhaps to be supplied in 
L. vi. 16, A. i. 13, 'lovha^ 'larccoßov, if the same apostle is 
mentioned in Jude 1 : compare Alciphr. 2. 2, TL/jiOKpdT7)<; 6 
MrjTpohojpov, seil. aSeX(/)09. Such a designation might arise 
in the apostolic circle from the circumstance that James, the 
brother of Judas, was better known or of higher position than 
"the father of Judas.^ 

Accordingly ol XA.077?, 1 C. i. 11 , are tliose tvJio are connected with 
Chloe, like ol 'Apta-ToßovXov, ol NapKtWov, E,om. xvi. 10; a more 
definite explanation the history alone could supply. Perhaps, with 
most interpreters, we should understand the households of these 
persons : others suppose the slaves to be referred to. To the original 
readers of the Epistles the expression was clear. See further Valcken. 
I c. (Don. pp. 356, 468, Jelf 436). 

Eem. 1. Not unfrequently, especially in Paul's style, three geni- 
tives are found connected together, one governed grammatically by 
another. In this case one of the substantives often represents an 
adjectival notion : 2 C. iv. 4, rou <^wTior/xov tov cvayyeXtov t^s So^t^? 
Tov Xptcrrov' E. i. 6, et? eiraivov So^t/s tyJ'? ^dpLT0<i avTOv' iv. 13, cts 
jxirpov •^XtKtas rov 7r\r]pu>ixaT0<; rov Xptcrrou (where the last two geni- 
tives are connected together), i. 19, Rom. ii. 4, Col. i. 20, ii. 12, 
18, 1 Th. i. 3, 2 Th. i. 9, Rev. xviii. 3, xxi. 6, H. v. 12, 2 P. iii. 
2.3 In Rev. xiv. 10 (xix. 15), olvos tov Ovjxov must be closely joined 
to "-ether, — wrath-wine, wine of burning, according to an 0. T. figure. 
Four genitives are thus connected in Rev. xiv. 8, e/< tov olvov tov 
Ovfxov TTj^ TTopvetas avrrj^' xvi. 19, xix. 15 (Judith ix. 8, X. 3, xiii. 18, 
Wis. xiii. 5, al.). But in 2 C. iii. 6, 8taKoi/ov5 /cati/-^? SiaßyJK7]<; ov ypajx- 
/x-aros aXka Tri/eu/xaro?, the last two genitives depend on StaKoVou?, as 
the following verse shows. Similarly in Rom. xi. 33 all three geni- 
tives depend on ßdOos. 

Rem. 2. Sometimes, especially in Paul's Epistles, the genitive, 
when placed after the governing noun, is separated from it by some 
other word : Ph. ii. 10, Iva ttuv yow Ka/xif/rj irrovpavnov Kai lirLyetuiv 
Koi KaTaxOovLOiv (explanatory genitives appended to ttui/ yow), Rom. 
ix. 21, ■>) ovK €)(€L i^ovarlav 6 Kepafxevs tov irrjXov ; 1 Tim. iii. 6, ti/a /xrj 
€t? Kpt/ia c/x7reo-77 tov StaßoXov (probably for emphasis), 1 Th. ii. 13, 
1 C. viii. 7, 11. viii. 5, Jo. xii. 11,1 P. iii. 21 : we find again a different 
arrangement in Rev. vii. 1 7. On the other hand, in E. ii. 3, yjfx€v 

1 Sec Winer, RWB. H. ^>7 s<i. [Smith, Did. 0/ Bible II. 254. On this 
exainyile and the next sec Li^flitfoot on Gdlatians, Dissert. 2.] 

2 See on the whole Jius, ELllps. (ed. Sehaif.) s. vv., Boisson. Philostr. Her, 

p. 307. 

3 Comp. Krüger, Xen. An. 2. 5. 38, Bornem. Acn. Apol. p. 44, Boisson. 

Bahr. p. 116. 



TiKva ({)va€L o/)'/'}?. the words could scarcely be arranged difTen^iitly 
withouL laying undue emphasis on c/)ua-ct { ^vVct rcVj/a opy^s).^ 

Rem. 3. Sometimes, but not frequently, we find one noun con- 
nected with two genitives of dilFcrent reference, — usually separated 
from each other in position ; the chief case is when one genitive 
refers to a person, the other to a thing (Kiiig. p. 40) : A. v. 32, 
1^/xct? ia-fxkv avTOv (Xptorov) ixdfjTvp€<; tu)V prjfxuTwv rourcoi/' 2 C V, 1, 
rj eTTiyctos ijjxwv oIkCo. tov crKi]vov<;' Ph. ii. 30, to vfiCjv v(rT€prjfxa t^? 
Actrovpytas' 2 P. iii. 2, Trj<» tCjv aTrocTToXiov v/xwv ivToXrj^ tov KVpiov' 
H. xiii. 7.^ Compare Her. 6. 2, rrjV ^Idtvoiv rijv -tjyefJiovLrjv tov Trpos 
Aap^lov TToXejxov' Thuc. 3. 12, Tr]V ckciVcdi/ /jLiWrjaLV twv cts 17/xtt? 
BetvwV 6. 18, r; NiKt'ou twv \6yo)v aTrpayfiocrvvy]' Plat. Legg. 3. G90 b, 
Tr]V TOV vojxov Ikovtihv ap)(jqv' Hep. 1. 329 b, to.'; tCjv oiK^ioiv irpo- 
TrqXaKLcreLS tov yr/pws" Diog. L. 3. 37, and Plat. Apol. 40 C, ix€T0tKr]cn<s 
TTJs il/v)(r]<; tov tottov tov ivOevSe (a very harsh instance). See Bernh. 
p. 162, Matth. 380. Ptem. 1 (Jelf 466).^ 

We may also bring in here 1 P. iii. 21, crapK6<; dTro^eo-ts pvirov, the 
flesh's putting away of filth {a-ap^ dTrort^cTat pinrov), unless there is a 
trajection in these words. 

Two genitives are connected in a diflferent way in Jo. vi. 1, y 
OdXaa-aa tt}? raAiAata?, Trj<i Tt^eptdSos, the lake of Galilee, of Tiberias. 
This lake is only once besides mentioned under the latter name (Jo. 
xxi. 1). It may be that John added the more definite to the general 
designation (compare Pausan. 5. 7. 3) for the sake of foreign readers, 
in order to give them more certain information of the locality. Beza 
in loc. gives a different explanation. Kühnöl's suspicion that the 
words r^9 Tt/?. are a gloss is too hasty. Paulus understands the words 
to mean that Jesus crossed over from Tiberias; but this is at variance, 
if not with Greek prose usage, yet certainly with that of the N. T. 
writers (compare Bornem. Aetaj). 149), who in such instances insert 
a preposition, as expressing the meaning more vividly than the simple 
case. The genitive Tt^. cannot be made to depend on the drro in 


Rem. 4. When the genitive stands before the governing noun, 

(a) It belongs equally to two nouns as in A. iii. 7 [i?ec.], avrov at 
ßd(r€L<i Koi TO. (Tcfivpd' Jo. xi. 48 : — or 

(h) It is emphatic : ^ 1 C. iii. 9, Oeov ydp icr/xev crvvepyoi, Oeov 
y€(ijpytov, oeov oIkoSo/xt] i<JTe' A. xiii. 23, tovtov (AaviS) 6 Oeo's diro 
TOV (T7r€pfjLaT0<s .... yyaye (rojTrjpa 'Irjcrovv' Ja. i. 26, ct rf» .... 
TovTov /otdratog y Oprjo-Kua' iii. 3, H. X. 36, E. ii. 8. This em- 

* See on the whole Jacob, Luc. Tax. p. 46, Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 241, Fritz. 
Rom. II. 331. 

- [Liinem. adds i[t. xxvi. 28, ro cclfjca. fx.ou rr,; ^ladt^Kns.] 

^ See Ast, Plat. Folit. p. 329, and Lecfg. p. 84 sq., Lob. Ajax -p. 219, Buttm. 
Dem. Mid. p. 17, and Soph. Phil. 751, Fritz. Qucest. Luc. p. Ill sq, (Kritz, 
Sallust II. 170). 

4 Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 118, Madvig 10. 


phasis not unfrequently arises from an express antithesis : Ph. ii. 25, 
Tov avcTTpaTHüTrjv /xov, v/xwv 8e olttocttoXov kol XeiTovpyou Trj<i ^eta? 
ixov Mt. i. 18, H. vii. 12, 1 P. iii. 21, E. ii. 10, vi. 9, G. iii. 15, 
iv. 28, 1 C. vi. 15, Rom. iii. 29, xiii. 4. Most commonly, however, the 
genitive contains the principal notion : Pom. xi. 13, iOvwv aTrdcrroXos, 
apostle of Gentiles; 1 Tim. vi. 17, eVi ttXovtov aSrjXoTrjTL, on riches, 
vjhich yet are fleeting ; Tit. i. 7, H. vi. 16, 2 P. ii. 14. That this 
position of the genitive may belong to the peculiarities of a writer's 
style (Gersdorf p. 296 sqq.) is not in itself impossible (since particular 
writers use even emphatic combinations with a weakened force), but 
at all events cannot be made probable. See further Poppo, Time. III. 
i. 243. 

There is difficulty in H. vi. 2, ßaTTTLo-fxwv StSa^^? (in dependence 
on OefiiXiov), — for, though some commentators, and recently Ebrard,^ 
strangely detach SiSaxrjs from /?a7rr., making it the governing noun 
for the four genitives, these two words must certainly be taken 
together. The only question is, whether (with most recent writers) 
we should assume a trajection, and take ßa-n-r. 8i8. as put for SiSa^rj's 
ßa7rTLcrixo)v. Such a trajection, however, would disturb the whole 
structure of the verse. If OU' the other hand we render ßa-n-TLo-ixot 
8t8a;(^s baptisms of doctrine or instruction, as distinguished from tlie 
legal baptisms (washings) of Judaism, we find a support for this 
designation, as characteristically Christian, in Mt. xxviii. 19, ßa-n-ri- 
(ravr€s^ avrovs .... 8t8ao-KovTC9 avrov? : Ebrard's objection, that 
that which distinguishes Christian baptism from mere lustrations is 
not doctrine but forgiveness of sins and the new birth, is of no weight 
whatever, for in Mt. xxviii. 19 nothing is said respecting forgiveness 
of sins. As regards the writer's use of the word ^aTrno'/xos here, and 
that in the plural, what Tholuck has already remarked may also be 
employed in favour of the above explanation. 

Rem. 5. In Mk. iv. 19, at Trcpl ra Xoiira e-jnOvjxLai, Kühnöl and 
others regard irepi with the accusative as a periphrasis for the 
genitive. But though Mark might very well have written at rwv 
XoLTTujv i-mO., the other form of expression not only is more definite 
but also preserves the proper meaning of irepi, cupiditates quae circa 
reliqua (reliquas res) versantur (Heliod. 1. 23. 45, cVt^v/xta irepl rrjv 
Xa/jiKÄctav' Aristot. lihet. 2. 12, at Trcpt to aoyfia lir ißvfxiai), j^st 
as fully as the meaning of Trept with the genitive is preserved in Jo. 
XV. 22. The instances in Greek authors in which Trcpi with the accu- 
sative forms a periphrasis for the genitive of the object to which a 

1 [So also Delitzsch and Alford : Bleek considers ßx-rr. and l-Trid. as go- 
verned by lthax.yii, but is undecided in regard to the other genitives. Winer's 
oVjjeotions are examined by Delitzsch (p. 214), who argues that teaching could 
not \nt assigned as the characteristic of Christian baptism, inasmuch as the 
Jewish baptism of })roselytes was accoinpani(ul by instruction. Besides, tlie point 
of Mt. xxviii. 20 surely lies in ^ravra 'öaa. iviru\oi/u,vy, not in "hi^affx. alone.] 

* [Quoted above (§ 21. 2) with the reading ßarril^oirii, which is found in 
almost all the MSS.J 


certain property is ascribed (as Diod. Sic. 11. 89, t; irepl to Upov 
dp)(ai6T7]'i' ih., TO TTcpt TOU9 KpaT?)pas tSto)/xa'), are ot a somewhat 
different kind. We miglit rather say tliat -n-cpi with the ^^enitive 
stands for tlie simple case in 1 C. vii. ^7, i^ova-ta mpl tov tStov Oe- 
XrinaTo<i, as the genitive miglit here have been nsed alone ; hnt power 
in regard to his will is at all events the more definite and the fuller 
expression. A similar nse of aTro and tV to form a periphrasis for 
tlie genitive is discovered by the commentators in A. xxiii. 21, 
TT/i/ airb (TOV tTrayycAtai/- and in 2 C viii, 7, TTJ i^ v/xiov ayaTrr] ; but 
these strictly mean amor qui a vobis proficiseUur, promissio a te 
profecta : tyj vfxwv dydfrr] M^ould be less precise, as this might also 
mean amor in vos.^ Similarly in Time, 2. 92, rj diro roiv "'kO-qvaioiv 
ßorjOcia- Dion. H. IV. 2235, ttoXvv Ik tC)V TrapovTMv KLvrj(Ta<; cAcov 
Plat. Rep. 2. 363 a, ra? dir avr^? fvSoKt/xTJo-a?- Dem. Pac. 24 b, 
Polysen. 5. 11, Diod. S. 1. 8, 5. 39, Exc. Vat. p. 117, Lucian, 
Conscr. Hist. 40 ^ (Jelf 483. Ohs. 4). Rom. xi. 27, -q irap ifxov 
hiadrjKT), requires the same explanation : compare Xen. Cyr. 5. 5. 
13, Isocr. Demon, p. 18, Arr. Al. 5. 18. 10, and see Fritz, in loc, 
Schoem. Isoeus p. 193. On Jo. i. 14 see Lücke. In no passage is 
there a meaningless periphrasis.^ In 1 C. ii. 12, in parallelism with 
ov TO TTvevfia tov Koa-fxov iXdßofiev, Paul designedly writes, aXXa 
TO TTvev/xa TO CK Oeov, not to 7r^ei)/xa Oeov, or to Oeov. The assertion 
that cV w4th its case stands for the genitive^ (in 1 C. ii. 7, E. ii. 21, 
Tit. iii. 5, 2 P. ii. 7) is altogether futile, as any one who reads with 
even moderate attention will perceive. Nor can we regard Kara 
with the accusative, in the examples commonly quoted, as a mere 
periphrasis for the genitive. In Rom. ix. 11, 17 Kar* cKXoyr)v Trpdöeo-t? 
means the predestination according to election, in consequence of an elec- 
tion ; xi. 21, ot Kara <^v(7lv /cXaSot are the branches according to nature, 
i.e. the natural branches ; similarly, H. xi. 7, 17 Kara ttio-tiv StKatoo-w^. 
In H. ix. 19, also, Kara tov voijlov, if joined with Trao-Tys ivToXrj'?, would 
not (as was clearly seen by Bleek) stand in the place of tov vofxov. 
See however above, § 22. 7. More suitable examples may be found 
in Greek writers ; as Diod. S, 1. 65, rj Kara ttjv dpxqv dTro^eo-t?, 
resignation of government (strictly, in respect of government), 4. 13, 
Exc. Vat. p. 103, Arr. Al 1. 18. 12, Matth. 380. Rem. 5. On 
cuayyeAtov Kara MarOaiov, k.t.X., see Fritzsche.^ It is altogether 

^ Compare Schaef. Julian p. vi, and on Dion. Camp. p. 23. 

* 2 C. ix. 2, i% vfjiZv ^^kos r,pi^t(ri roh; TXs/avaj, is an instance of attraction. 
[This reading is doubtful : good MSS. omit 11.] 

3 Compare Jacobs, Athen. 321 sq., Anth. Pal. 1. 1, 159, Schaef. Soph. Aj. 
p. 228, Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 329. 

* [A. Buttmann (p. 156), acknowledging that Winer's view is critically exact, 
maintains that in many of these instances the term " periphrasis for the geni- 
tive " is convenient and substantially correct. In the same way the partitive 
genitive is often supported by U (Jo. vi. 60, al.) : compare Jelf 621. 3. i, and 
Mullach, Vulg. p. 324.] 

^ See Koppe, Eph. p. 60. 

6 Compare examples in the Nova Biblioth. Lubec. II. 105 sq. [See "Westcott, 
Introd. to Gospels, p. 210.] 



wrong to take to. et? Xpto-rov Traövy/xara, 1 P. i. 11, for ra Xpto-rov 
TraOijfxara (v. 1) : they are (like Trepl ri^s cts v/xas x^^P'-'^^'^i ^^'^- ^^) 
the sufferings (destined, intended) for Christ. 

It is a different matter when a preposition with its case takes the 
place of a genitive in dependence on a noun through the preference 
of the root-verb for this preposition, as Kotvwvta v/xwj/ cts to cuayyeXtov 
Ph. i. 5; compare iv. 15. So probably eir^pwrrjixa cis Oeov (after 
God) 1 P. iii. 21 ; compare 2 S. xi. 7, iirepoiTav ek 6e6v. 

4. The same type of immediate dependence is also presented 
when the genitive is joined with verbal adjectives and parti- 
ciples, whose meaning is not such that they (the root-verbs) 
would regularly govern the genitive (as in 2 P. ii. 14, /zeo-rou? 
fxoi'^akLBo<i' Mt. X. 10, aft09 t^9 Tpo<^rj^' H. iii. 1, KX-tjaeco'^ 
fxero'^oL, etc., see no. 8 ; E. ii. 12, ^evou tcov ScaOrjKcov ; etc.). 
Thus we have in 1 C. ii. 13, Xoyoi StSaKTol irvevfiaro^ dylov (see 
above, page 236) ; 2 P. ii. 14, KapBiav yeyvfJivao-iJLivrjv irXeove- 
^la<i} Compare Iliad 5. 6, XeXov/jL6vo<; wKedvoio' Soph. Aj. 807, 
^(OTo<; '^7raT7}/jL€vr)' ih. 1353, (piXcov vncoojxevo^ : with 1 C. ii. 13 
in particular, compare Soph. El. 344 Kelvr}^; BiSaKrd; and with 
2 P. ii. 14, Philostr. Her. 2. 15 6aXdTTr}<^ ovttco jeyvfjuvaafievot' 
3. 1, NicTTopa TToXi/jicov itoXXmv yeyvfivaajjievov' 10. 1, cro(j)ia<; 
rjhr] yeyviMvaajjbevov; see Boisson. Philostr. Her. p. 451.^ In 
German [and English] we resolve the genitive in all these 
instances by means of a preposition, tcmght hj the Holy Spirit, 
hathed in the ocean, practised on sea, etc. And perhaps in the 
simple language of ancient times the genitive in combinations of 
this kind was conceived as the ivhejice-case : see Härtung, Casus, 
p. 1 7 (J elf 540. Ohs.). The two following passages also may be 
easily explained on the same principle: H. iii. 12, Kaphla irovrjpd 
äTnarla^, a heart evil in respect of unbelief, where it is ainaTia 
that proves the TrovrjpLa ; if the substantive were used, Trovrjpia 
diriaTLa^, the genitive (of apjjosition) would present no difficulty 
wliatever. A similar example is Wis. xviii. 3, rfXiov dßXaßPj 
^iXoTLfiov ^eviT€ta<; 7rapea'^e<; : see Monk, Eur. Ale. 751, Matth. 
339, 345. 

The second passage is Ja. i. 13, where most commentators 
render direlpaaTo^ KaKwv untempted — incapable of beingtempted 

^ [The reading of Rec, -rXiovillais, is found in no uncial MS.] 
^ [Compare Jelf 483. OOs. \i, Green, (Jr. p. 96 sq.] 


— hj evil (compare Sopli. Ant. 847, aKkavro^ (piXojv ^schyl. 
Thrh. 875, kukwv drpu/jLov€<;' and Scliwenck, yEscliyl. Eiunen. 
9G) ; but Sclmlthcss, uiiccrscd in evil} The parallelism with 
ireipd^ei is imfavouvable to the latter explanation. The active 
meaning given to the word in the yEthiopic version, not tempting 
to evil, is inadmissible, but rather because it would render the 
following words Tretpd^et Be avTo<; ovheva tautological (whereas 
the use of Se shows that the apostle wished to make some 
new assertion, and not merely to repeat direlpaaro^), and also 
because direipao-ro^ does not occur in an active sense, than (as 
Schulthess thinks) because of the genitive KaKcov.'^ The genitive 
is used, at all events by poets and by writers whose language 
has to some extent a poetic or rhetorical colouring, with great 
latitude of meaning : direlpao-To^; KaKoiv, in the sense of not 
tempting in reference to evil, would be as correct an expression 
as Soph. Aj. 1405, Xovrpcov oatcov i7riKaLpo<;, convenient for holy 
washings, or Her. 1. 196, irapdevou ^dfjioiv copalat, rijM for mar- 
riage. (Don. 478, Jelf 518. 4.) 

The Pauline expression KX-qrol ^I-qa-ov Xpto-roC, Rom. i. 6, cannot be 
brought under the above rule (as is still done by Thiersch) : in 
accordance with the view of the kXyjo-l's which the apostles take in 
other places, the words must be rendered Christ's called ones, i.e. 
men called (by God), who are Christas, — who belong to Christ. On 
the other hand, we may bring in here o/xotos tlvo<^, Jo. viii, 55 (o/xoios 
Tivi being the regular construction),^ and also e'yyvs with the genitive, 
Jo. xi. 18, Eom. x. 8, xiii. 11, H. vi. 8, viii. 13, al. With cyyv? this 
is the ordinary construction, but e'yyv? tivl also occurs, see Bleek, 
Hehr. II. ii. 209, Matth. 339 (Jelf 592. 2). Even adjectives com- 
pounded with (Tvv sometimes take the genitive, as crvfxixopcfios rrj^ 
ciKoVos Rom. viii. 29 (Matth. 379. Rem. 2, Jelf 507). 

5. Most closely akin to the simple genitive of dependence 
with nouns, and in fact only a resolution of this genitive into a 
sentence, is the very common construction elval or yivecrdai 
TLvo<;, which is used in Greek prose (Krug. p. 34 sq., Madvig 54, 

^ [So De W., Brückner, Huther, Alford (see his note in loc). A. Buttmann 
(p. 170) defends the rendering untempted by eidl.] 

2 On the active and passive meaning of verbals see Wex, Soph. Ant. I. 162 
(Jelf 356. 06s. 2, Don. p. 191.) 

3 See Matth. 386. Rem. 2, Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 104, III. 46 (Jelf 507). 
On sirnilis alicujus and similar expressions, see Zumpt, Lat. Gr. § 411. [Comp. 
Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 247. 06s. 2, Don. Lat. Gr. p. 287. In Jo. viii. 55, we 
should probably read vfx.7y (Lachm., Treg., Westcott), not C/4,^v (Tisch., 


Ast, Lex. Plat. I. 621, Don. p. 473 sq.) with yet greater variety 
of meaning than in the N". T. This construction was formerly 
explained as arising from the ellipsis either of a preposition or 
of a substantive. In the N". T. w^e may distinguish 

(ft) The genitive of the whole, of the class (plural), and of the 
sphere (singular), to which a man belongs: 1 Tim. i. 20, mv 
iarlv 'Tfjuevato^;, of whom is (to whom belongs) Ilyinenceus ; 
2 Tim. i. 15, A. xxiii. 6 (1 Mace. ii. 18, Plat. Protag. 342 e, 
Xen. An. 1. 2. 3) ; 1 Th. v. 5, 8, ovk ia^ev vvkto<; ovBe ctkotov^ 
.... r]fjLel<; rj/iepa^i ovre^, helonging to the night, to the clay ; 
A. ix. 2. (Jelf 533.) 

(b) The genitive of the ruler, Im-d, possessor, etc. : Mt. xxii. 
28, TLvo^ T03V ema earac jvvij ; 1 C. iii. 21, iravra v/mcov icrriv 
(Xen. An. 2. 1. 4, Ptol. 1. 8. 1) ; vi. 19, ovk iare iavrcov, ye 
belong not to yourselves; 2 C. iv. 7, tm r) vTrepßoXr} t^9 Svvd- 
/Ltect)? 17 70V Oeov koL fjurj ef rjfjLMP, that . . . may be God's and 
not from us ; x. 7, XpLarov elvai' Eom. viii. 9 (similarly in 
1 C. i. 12 of the heads of parties, e^w elfiL JJavKov compare 
Diog. L. 6. 82). Akin to this are A. i. 7, ol»;)^ vfioiv earl 'yvcovav 
K.T.X., it does not appertain to you, it is not in your power to 
know (Plat. Gorg. 500 a, Xen. (Ec. 1. 2), Mk. xii. 7, ^J^cSz^ 
earai 77 Kkr]povoixLa (Mt. v. 3), 1 P. iii. 3 ; also H. v. 14, reXelcov 
io-rlv T) (rrepea rpocpT], belongs to (is suitable for) those who are 
perfect (Jelf 518). 

(c) The genitive of a property ^ (expressed by the singular of 
an abstract noun) in which any one participates, as in 1 C. xiv. 
33, OVK earcv äKaTacnaaia<^ 6 6e6^' H. x. 39, riixel<^ ovk icrfxev 
v7roaTo\rj<i .... aXka irLarew^ k.t.X. (Plat. Apol. 28a): the 
application of this idiom is very varied. We also find the geni- 
tive of a concrete noun, as in A. ix. 2, rova^ tt}? oSov 6vTa<; ; ^ 
especially of the years of a person's age, Mk. v. 42, rjv ircop 
UheKa- L. ii. 42, iii. 23, A. iv. 22, Tob. xiv. 2, 11, Plat. Legg. 
4. 721 a. In these examples the subject is a person, in the fol- 
lowing a thing: H. xii. 11, iraaa Traihela ov BoKel '^apä<; elvai, 
is not (matter) of joy, something joyous, — though this might be 

* [A. Buttmann (p. 163) adds the remark tliat the use of the genitive with uvxt 
to denote a permanent jjroperty or quality (as in II. xii. 11, x. 39, 2 P. i. 20) 
is almost unknown to (Jro(;k prose (Madvig .04. Rem. 1) : compare below § 34. 
3. b. — He refers to this head the genitive -^vx^^ iii \ifiy. xxi. 17 (as having 
arisen out of to TiT^et riv r. •xnx^'») \ similarly x'^'«^'^* in ver. 16.] 

^ [A. ix. 2 is also (quoted above, under (a). J 


referred to (o) ; 2 P. i. 20, Traaa Trpocfyrjreia ypa(j)'}]<; tS/a? eVi- 
\va€(o<; ov yiverat. When persons are spoken of, this constrnc- 
tion of elfilis sometimes made more animated, after the oriental 
manner, by the insertion of viü<i or tckvov ; compare 1 Th. v. 5, 
vfieU viol 00)70? iare koI viol T^/jL€pa<;} (J elf 518.) 

The verb elvac is sometimes omitted, the same relations being 

expressed by the genitive ; as in Ph. iii. 5, iyco (f)uXr)<; 


6. The genitive appears in the N. T. with verbs (and adjec- 
tives) as a clearly conceived case of proceeding from, motion 
whence, with a variety of application natural to this relation : 
Greek prose however is still richer than the N. T. in such ap- 
plications, and in the N. T. the genitive is frequently supported 
by prepositions. Since separation from is closely related to 
proceeding from, and that which proceeds from and is separated 
from may in many cases be regarded as a part of the whole 
which remains behind, the genitive, as the case of 'procecdirig 
from, is also the regular case oi separation and oi partition. We 
shall first consider the genitive of separation and removal, as the 
more limited. 

Words which express the notion of separation or removal are 
ordinarily construed by Greek writers with a simple genitive, 
even in prose ; as iXevßepovv tiv6<; to free from something, kw- 
Xveiv, viro-^wpelv, Travetv, SLacf^epeiv, vcrrepelv tlvo<; (see Matth. 
353 sqq., 366, Beruh, p. 179 sq., Don. p. 466, Jelf 530 sq.^), 
though it is not at all uncommon to find suitable prepositions 
used in such cases. Accordingly, in the N. T. the simple genitive 
is found with fjLerao-raOrjvai,, L. xvi. 4 ; ^ aaro-^etv, 1 Tim. i. 6 ; * 
iraveadaL, 1 P. iv. 1 ; KwkveLv, A. xxvii. 43 (compare Xen. Cyr. 
2. 4. 23, An. 1. 6. 2, Pol. 2. 52. 8, al.) ; Btacpepetv, Mt. x. 31, 
1 C. XV. 41, al. (Xen. Cyr. 8. 2. 21, compare Ivriig. Dion. H. 
p. 462); äiroo-Tepeladai, 1 Tim. vi. 5;^ also vaTepelv, to he 

^ We also use both modes of expression, thou art Death's, and thou art 
a child of Death ; but it does not follow from this that there is an ellipsis in 
the former phrase (Kühnöl on H. x. 39). 

2 [For verbs of missing {a.(rrox,iiv) see Don. p. 466, Jelf 514 ; for ^ia(pipuv, 
Don. p. 476, Jelf 50-3 sq. ; v<rrspi7v, Don. p. 476, Jelf 506.] 

3 [The best texts insert Ix. here.] 

* [That is, if Jv is governed by KerTox^^a-ayris (Huther, Grimm, Alford), and 
not by i'^irpa.'Tnffa.v (Ellicott).] 

^ In A. xix. 27 good MSS. have fiiXXuv n xa.) KAeetipuaioci Tr,s i^iya.- 
XtioTnToi a.vrr,s, and Lachmann has received this reading; but I agree with 


hehind,fall short of, 2 C. xi. 5, xii. 11 (see Bleek on H. iv. 1), 
and ^evoi tcov ScaOrjKOüv, E. ii. 12. Yet the use of the preposition 
has the preponderance : — 

(a) With verbs of separating, freeing, and heing free (Matth. 
353 sq., Bernh. p. 181, Jelf 531. Ohs. 3), invariably: x^pi^eiv 
uTTo, Kom. viii. 35, 1 C. vii. 10, H. vii. 26 (Plat. Pha^d. 67 c, — 
contrast Polyb. 5. 111. 2); Xveiv airo, L. xiii. 16, 1 C. vii. 27 ; 
IXevQepovv airo, Eom. vi. 18, 22, viii. 2, 21 (Thuc. 2. 71: found 
also with U, Matth. 353. Kern.); pveaOai, airo, Mt. vi. 13 (2 S. 
xix. 9, Ps. xvi. 13 sq.), with eV L. i. 74, Eoin. vii. 24, al., Ex. 
vi. 6, Job xxxiii. 30, Ps. Ixviii. 15 ; acD^eiv äiro, Kom. v. 9 (Ps. 
Ixviii. 15), and more frequently with e/c, Ja. v. 20, H. v. 7 (2 S. 
xxii. 3 sq., 1 K. xix. 17); Xvrpovv airo. Tit. ii. 14, Ps. cxviii. 
134 (XvTpovv Tivo^, Fabric. Pseudepigraph. 1. 710); KaOapl- 
i^eiv aiTo, 1 Jo. i. 7, 2 C. vii. 1, H. ix. 14, — and accordingly 
Ka6apo<; cltto A. xx. 26, compare Tob. iii. 14, Demosth. Nemr. 
528 c (with eK Appian, Syr. 59), äewo^ airo (IP ^?5) Mt. xxvii. 
24, comp. Krebs, Ohserv. 73, Gen. xxiv. 41, Num. v. 19, 31 
(^ä6co6<; TiVL, Jos. ii. 17, 19 sq.): similarly Xoveiv airo (a pregnant 
construction, by means of washing cleanse from), A. xvi. 33, 
Eev. i. b} 

(b) Where the construction with the simple genitive is also 
used: Eev. xiv. 13, dvaTraveaßao^ 6k twv kottwv 1 P. iii. 10, 
TravaaTü) t7]v yXwa-aav airo KaKov (Esth. ix. 16, Soph. EL 987, 
Thuc. 7. 73) : vcrrepelv airo, H. xii. 15, is probably a pregnant 

The notion of separation and removal is also the foundation of the 
Hellenistic construction KpvTTTctv (rt) airo nvos, L. xix. 42 (for which 
the Greeks said kpvtttclv tlvo. tl) ; this too is properly a pregnant 
construction. In the LXX compare Gen. iv. 14, xviii. 17, 1 S. iii. 
18, al. To the construction of verbs of remaining behind anything 
(v<TT€p€iv Tivos) may be referred the genitive in 2 P. iii. 9, ov ßpahvv(.i 
b KvpLO^ Trj<; cTrayyeAia? (ov ßpaBv<s ctrrt t^s CTrayycAt'as) : compare 

]\Ieyer, who considers this reading (which probably is due to an error of tran- 
fcicription, sec Bengel) too weak for tlic cliaracter of the passage, [Tlie genitive 
is received l)y recent editors. A. Ikittniann (p. 158) considers the genitive 
partitive: Alford with better reason translates "deposed from lier greatness." 
In 2 V. i. 4 oi-ro(f>iv'y'civ is followed ])y a genitive : see Alford's note.] 

' [In Itev. i. f) kutravTi is strongly supj)orted, and is received by Lachni., 
Tisch., Treg., Westeott and Plort. With Ka.6a.foi a-Tra c()ni])are «ir^/Xaj ä-Tro, Ja. i. 27 
(A. liuttrn.) ; unless ä^a here belongs to <T^pi7v (Do W., Alford). — In modern 
Greek verbs o^ liberatinij, etc., are always followed by ocro (Mullach p. 324).] 

^ ['Avasr«i/'£«r^a< Um/f iH uot jolncd witli a simple genitive in the N. T.] 


v(TTcpovy T?j<; ßoi-jOua^, Diod. S. 13. 110. Evoii as early as tlio 
Syriac versiuii wc tiiid cVayy. joined witli ßpahvvu. 

7. The simplest examples in prose of the pjenitive of ^?'ö- 
cccding from and of derivation are presented by äpxofial tlvo^ 
I hcgin from (with) something (Härtung p. 14), Se^ofJial rcvo^ 
I receive from some one (Herrn. Vig. p. 877), Seofial tipo<; (geni- 
tive of person) I supiolicate from some one (Matth. 355. Eem. 2), 
aKovdi Tivo^ I hear from some one : then we find 'yevofiai, iadlco 
TLv6<i (e.g. apTov, fie\cTo<;) I taste, eat of something, ovlva/iai 
rivo^ I derive advantage, enjoyment, from something ; and, lastly, 
Bl8(o/xI, Xa/ißcivco tlv6<;, I give, take, of something (Herrn. Opusc. 
I. 178). In all these instances the genitive denotes the object 
from which the hearing, eating, giving, proceeds, — from which 
is derived what is eaten, tasted, given, etc. In the last examples 
the genitive also denotes the mass, the whole, a part of which 
is enjoyed, tasted, given, etc., and therefore these genitives may 
also be regarded as partitive ; for where the reference is to the 
whole, or to the object absolutely, the accusative is used, as 
the case of the simple object. In the language of the N. T., 
however, the genitive is supported by a preposition in many of 
these constructions. To come to particulars : — 

(a) Aeofiai takes without exception the genitive of the person 
(Mt. ix. 38, L. v. 12, viii. 28, A. viii. 22, al.), the thing requested 
being subjoined in the accusative, as in 2 C. viii. 4, heo^evoi 
Tjficjv TTjv y^dpiv k.tX} (Don. p. 468, Jelf 529.) 

Q)) Of the genitive with verbs of giving there is only one 
example, Eev. ii. 17, hoiao) avrw rov fidvva ; where some MSS. 
have the correction Bcoaco avTw ^ayetv cltto tov fidvva? On the 
other hand, in Eom. i. 1 1 and 1 Th. ii. 8 the apostle could not 
have written fieraSL^ovac ')(^api<7fiaTo<; or evayyeXiov (Matth. 326. 
3); for in the first passage he means some particular charisma 
(in fact he says 'x^dpia/xd tl) as a whole, and in the latter the 
gospel is referred to as something indivisible. Paul did not 
purpose to impart something from a spiritual gift, or something 
from the Gospel. (Don. p. 473, Jelf 535.) 

^ Weber, Dem. p. 163. [Once we find 1=7^6x1 Tpo; rov xvpiov öru; k.t.x. 
(A. viii. 24).] 

2 This very passage clearly shows the distinction between the genitive and 
the accusative, as *«< luxru ^ii(pov XtvKr,v immediately follows : compare Heliod. 

2. 23. 100, iTippo(p9vv fjiiy TOV v^ctTo;, ÖS xa) olvo*. 


(c) Verbs oi enjoying oi partaking : '7Tpo^\afJißdvea6ai Tpo(f>rj<; 
A. xxvii. 36, /jLeToXa/jLßdveiv rpocjyrj^; A. ii. 46, xxvii. 33 sq., yeve- 
crOat rod helirvov L. xiv. 24 (figuratively in H. vi. 4 yeveaSat, 
TTj'i Scop6ä<; T^9 iiTOvpaviov, <yevea6<ii davdrov Mt. xvi. 28, L. ix. 
27, H. ii. 9, al.) : also with the genitive of a person, Phil. 20, 
iyco aov ouai/jbrjv eV /cupLO) (so as early as Odyss. 19. 68), Rom. 
XV. 24, edv vfjucov . . . . ifjurXriaOo). But yeveadav governs the 
accusative in Jo. ii. 9 iyevaaro rb vhcop, and in H. Vi. 5,^ as it 
frequently does in Jewish Greek (Job xii. 11, Ecclus. xxxvi. 24, 
Tob. vii. 11), but probably never in Greek writers.^ A^erbs of 
eating of, as also those of giving and taking of ox from, are in all 
other ]Sr. T. passages accompanied by prepositions : — 

a. By dwo : L. xxiv. 42 [i?ßc.], enrehwKav avTa> . . . drro fie- 
Xiaalov KTjpLov, xx. 10 ; Mt. xv. 27, rd fcvvdpta iaOlet diro rcov 
yjri'^lcov Tcxiv TratBitov, — compare ]f? ^^^, and (payelv diro Fabric. 
Pseudep. I. 706; L. xxii. 18, ov [xrj Trm diro rod yevv7]fiaT0<; t^9 
d/jLTriXov, Jer. Ii. (xxviii.) 7; A. ii. 17, cV^eco diro rov Trz^ei^yLtaro? 
fjiov (from the LXX) ; v. 2, Kal ivoa-c^iaaTo diro t^9 Tifirj^;' Jo. 
xxi. 10, eveyfcare diro rcou oyfraplodV Mk. xii. 2, iva .... Xdßrf 
diTo rov Kapirov rov djiTrekodvo^;. 

b. By eK : 1 C. xi. 28, i/c rov dprov iadieTco' ix. 7 (2 S. xii. 
3, 2 K. iv. 40, Ecclus. xi. 19, Judith xii. 2): Jo. iv. 14, 09 dv 
irlrj Ik rov vSaTo<;'^ v. 50, o äpTo<; .... Lva ri<; i^ avrov <pdyy 

•^ Bengel (on H. vi. 4) seems to triÜe, in making a distinction in this passage 
between yiUaScn with a genitive and with an accusative. [" The change of con- 
struction from the genitive to the accusative in the small compass of this passage 
cannot be mere looseness of language. . . . This construction must be viewed 
as an indication of a change of meaning, resulting from the presence of an 
epithet, not as a mere epithet, but as entering into the predicate ; the action 
signified being now no longer the bare process of tasting, but of becoming 
cognisant by that means of a quality or condition of the object of taste. The 
epithet kccXov must be regarded as belonging to twä.fjLiti as well as ßf/.a.'" — Green, 
(Jr. p. 94. Other explanations (less probable) will be found in the notes of 
Delitzsch and Alford. Comp. Jo, iv. 23 (p. 263, note ^).] 

^ In the sense of eating up, consuming, (payiTv and ia-^Uiv of course take an 
accusative (Mt. xii. 4, Rev. x. 10) ; 1 C. ix. 7 [rov Kocpvov'] is a characteristic 
example. They also have the accusative when there is merely a general refer- 
ence to the food which a man (ordinarily) takes, on which he supports himself : 

Mk. i. i), 71» 'lueivvyts . , . , icr^iMV ü.Kp't}cts xeci fz'iXi ccypiov' Kom. xiv. 21, Mt. XV, 2, 

1 C. viii, 7, x. 3, 4 (Jo. vi. 58) ; compare Diog. L. 15. 45. Probably in no 
instance would i<rötuv rt (compani also 2 Th. iii. 12) be entirely indefensible, and 
hence the non-occurrence of itrCmv Ttvo; (by tlu; side of «to or 'ix Tivos) ceases to 
appear strange. L. xv. 16, uto tZ» x.ipa.T'icA>y Zv ria-Utov ol x""^?^'? ^^ most likely an 
example of attraction, in the LXX we regularly iiud Ußiuv, -rlvn» n : the only 
exce]>tion is Num. xx. 11), luv roZ v^ccTOi aov ■Trituju.ti. 

^ It is otherwise in 1 (J. x. 4, i-rnov Ik Tvivf^ttTiKti} ocKeXovöov<rr.s -riTpus : Flatt's 
explanation is a conjplete failure. 


1 Jo. iv. 1 3, etc ToO 7rv€u/iaT0<; avrov BeBoyKeu rjfilv. But II. 
xiii. 10, cpajelv iic dvaiaarripLov, is not au example of this 
kind, as it" the words were tantamount to cpayelu e/c dvala^, for 
6uaiaaTi]ptov means altar : it is only in sense that eat from, the 
altar is equivalent to cat of the sacrifice (offered on the altar). 
There is probably no example of ia-dUiv aizo or eV to be found in 
Greek authors, but anroXaveiv airo nvo^, Plat. Eep. 3. 395 c, 10. 
606 b, Apol. 31 b, is a kindred expression. 

(d) Of verbs of perception, a/covco is construed with the geni- 
tive of the person (to hear from some one), to hear some one, as 
in Mt. xvii. 5, Mk. vii. 14, L. ii. 46, Jo. iii. 29, ix. 31, Eev. vi. 
1, 3, Eom. X. 14 ; ^ the object is expressed by the accusative, as 
in A. i. 4, rjv rjKovaaTe fiov Lucian, Dial. Deor. 20. 13 (Don. 
p. 469 sq., Jelf 485 sqq.). Besides this construction, however, 
we also find aKovecv re diro, 1 Jo. i. 5 ; eV, 2 C. xii. 6 (this 
occurs as early as Odyss. 15. 374) ; Trapd, A. x. 22 : here Greek 
authors would have been content with a simple genitive.^ A 
genitive of the thing is joined to dicoveiv in Jo. v. 25, H. iv. 7, 
die. <pcovf](;' L. XV. 25, rjKovae av/jL(pcovia<; Kal '^opcov Mk. xiv. 
64, rjKovaare T7]<; ß\aa<p7]fjLLa<;' 1 Macc. x. 74, Bar. iii. 4 
(Lucian, Rale. 2, Gall. 10, Xen. Cj/r. 6. 2. 13, al.) ; an accusa- 
tive in L. V. 1, d/covecv tov Xoyov rov Oeov' Jo. viii. 40, rrjv 
aK.r]Qeiav, r\v iJKovaa irapa r. deov k.tX. In the latter examples 
the object is regarded as one coherent whole, and the hearing is 
an act of the intellect : in the former, the reference is in the first 
instance to the particular tones or words which are heard (with 
the physical ear) : compare Eost p. 535.^ 

The genitive after riryxavctv (e7riTxry;(avctv) is perhaps, in its origin, 
to be explained by the above rule ; yet we also find it where the 

' By others (Riickert and Fritzsche) the personal genitive in pv oIk vx-»u- 
oa.t is understood to mean of whom (de quo) they have not heard, as we find 
KKo-Juv Tivos in Iliad 24. 490. This does not seem to me probable (for the 
construction in this sense is confined to poetry), and still less is it necessary' : 
we hear Christ when we hear the Gospel in which He speaks, and accordingly 
XpiffTov uxouuv is in E. iv. 21 predicated of those who had not heaj-d Christ in 
person. Philippi's note in loc. is superficial. 

2 [These prepositions are sometimes inserted in classical Greek (Don. p. 470, 
Jelf 485) : e. g., i^«, Thuc. 1. 125 ; cr«^«, Xen. An. 1. 2. 5 ; ik, Her. 3. 62.] 

'[A. Buttmann (p. 167) considers Jo. xii. 47, A. xxii. 1, al., as examples of 
another construction of a.y.ovu, — with two genitives, of person and thing. — He 
remarks that all other verbs of this class have in the N. T. an accusative of the 
object, and take a-«/»« or u,iro before the genitive of the person.] 


whole object is referred to. This verb always takes the genitive in 
the X. T.i (L. XX. 35, A. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 3, al.) : on the accusative 
see Herrn. Vig. p. 762, Bernh. p. 176 (Jelf 512. Ohs.). In the same 
way earlier writers almost always construe KXrjpovofx^lv {inherit, also 
jyarticipate in) with a genitive (Kypke II. 381) ; in the later writers 
and in the N. T. it takes the accusative of the thing, e. g. in Mt. v. 4 
[v. 5 Bee], xix. 29, G. v. 21 (Polyb. 15. 22. 3) : see Fischer, fFelL 
III. i. 368, Lob. p. 129, Matth. 329. 

Aay;(avciv has an accus, in A. i. 17, and in 2 P. i. 1, Io-otljjlov tj/juv 
Xa)(^ov(TL TTicTTLv (wlicrc TTLorTL^ Is Hot tlio faltli, iu the ideal sense, in 
which every Christian participates through his personal conviction, 
but the subjective faith belonging to the Christians immediately 
addressed) : see Matth. 328. Eem. In L. i. 9 this verb (in the sense 
of obtain hj lot) is joined with a genitive.^ (Jelf 512.) 

8. In the foregoing examples we have already perceived the 
notion of proceeding from glide into that of participation in : 
this partitive signification of the genitive is still more distinctly 
apparent in such combinations as fiere^eiv tiv6<;, ifXr^povv tlvo^, 
dcyydveiv tiv6<;. With the genitive are construed 

(a) Words that express the notion of sharing in, partici- 
pating in, wanting (wishing to participate), see Matth. 325 
(Don. p. 472, 468, Jelf 535, 529) : Koivcovelv, H. ii. 24 ; Koivay- 
v6<^, 1 C. X. 18, 1 P. V. 1 ; avyKOLvwvo^, V\.om. xi. 17 ; fiere^eiv, 1 
C. ix. 1 2, x. 2 1, H. V. 13; /leraXa/jißduecv, H. vi. 7, xii. 1 ; fxero- 
p^09, H. iii. 1: also 'x^pij^eLv,^ 32, 2 C.iii. l,al.; irpo<;^ela6ai, 
A. xvii. 2 5. But Koivwveiv is also foundwdth a dative of the thing, 
and indeed this is the more common construction in the N". T. ; "^ 
1 Tim. V. 22, firj KOLvcovet dfiaprlac^; d\\oTpiaL<;' Eom. xv. 27, 
1 P. iv. 13, 2 Jo. 11 (Wis. vi. 25). In a transitive sense it is 
joined with et9 in Ph. iv. 15, ovSe/n la /jlol eKKXrjaia iKOivcovrjcrei' 
et? Xoyov Socrew? : compare Plat. liep. 5. 453 b, hvvarr] (j)vat(; r; 
Orfketa rfj rov äpp€vo<; <yevov<; KotvcovrjcraL eh airavTa rd epya' 
Act. ApocT. p. 91. The dative of the thing with kolv(ov€lv and 
/jLerixecv is sometimes found in Greek writers (Thuc. 2. 16, De- 

* In good MSS. i'rirvy;^eivuv has the accus, once, Rom. xi. 7 ; see Fritz, in loc. 

2 Compare Briinck, Sopli. El 364, Jaco])s, Anlh. Pal. III. 803. 

3 In L. xi. 8 several MSS. have oVav zP'^'C^y l^>iit we cannot (with Kühnöl) 
infer from this, any more than from tlie construction XP^^^'^ '^' (Mutth. 355. 
Kern. 2), tliat xP^C^'* takes an accusative;, in the sense of desiring, crmnntj. 
[Compare Green p. 95, and see below, § 32. 4.] 

* [On the constructions of x.oi\iun7v in the N. T. see EUicott's note on G. vi. 6 : 
he maintains that this verb is always intransitive in the N. T. Koivtuvas also 
takes a dative of the person (L. v. l6).] 


mostli. Cor. c. 18), see Poppo, Thuc. III. ii. 77 : in the case of 
Koivcovelv this construction is explained by the notion of asso- 
ciation wliich lies in the word. (1 Tim. v. 22 cannot be resolved 
into fjirjhev aoi koi rat? dfjLaprLai<; dWorp. kolvov earw.) Once 
we fnid /ieTe;^6t^' joined with eV : 1 C. x. 17, e'/cToi) evo<; aprov 
fjLere-^ofiev : I know of no example of the kind in Greek writers. 
(h) Words of fulness, filling} cnqitincss, and deficiency 
(:\ratth. 351 sq., Don. p. 468, Jelf 539, 529) : Horn. xv. 13, 
6 ^€09 TrXijpcoaac v/JLä<; irdar]^ X^P^^ '^^^ elprjvt]'^' L. i. 53, 
7r6iv(ovTa<; iveirXrjaev d<ya6o)v' A. v. 28, TreTrXrjpco/care rrjv 
^lepovaaX^jfi r?)? SL8a^f]<; vfjbwv (A. ii. 28, from the LXX), 
Jo. ii. 7, yefiiaare ra? vSpia<; v8aT0<; (vi. 13), Mt. xxii. 10, 
eirXrjaörj 6 ydfjiO<; dvaKeLfievwv (A. xix. 29), Jo. i. 14, 7rXr]p7]^ 
'y^dpLTo^' 2 P. ii. 14, 6(p6aXfiol fiearol ixoL')(aXi^o<^' L. xi. 39, 
TO 6(7(1)6 ev v/jLa>v yifJLeL dpira'yrj<; koI 7rov7]pia<;' Ja. i. 5, ev rt? 
v/jicov XeLirerai ao(^La<;? Eom. iii. 23, 7rdvT€<; vaTepovvTai Tr)9 
8of?;? Tov Oeov (compare Lob. p. 237) ; see also A. xiv. 17, 
xxvii. 38, L. xv. 17, xxii. 35, Jo. xix. 29, Eom. xv. 14, 24, Eev. 
XV. 8. Only seldom are verbs of fulness joined with diro " 
(L. XV. 16, eTreOv/iec yefilaai tyjv KotXiav avrov diro twv Kepa- 
TLCÜV' xvi. 21), or with iK, as in Eev. viii. 5 (yefii^eiv eV), 
Eev. xix. 21 ('x^oprd^. e/c, contrast x^prd^ecv rivo^ Lam. iii. 
15, 29), Eev. xvii. 2, 6 (fjueöveiv, pLe6vaKea6ai eV), compare 
Lucian, Dial. D. 6. 3.* Altogether solecistic is yeptov rd 
ovopara, Eev. xvii. 3 (compare ver. 4).^ The use of the dative 
with irXrjpovv, pie6v(TKeo6ai, etc., rests on an essentially different 
view of the relation ; see § 31. 7. In 1 C. i. 7 {jaTepeladai iv 

•^ To this head belongs also -rXoUioi with the genitive, Eur. Or. 394. In 
the N. T. the preposition Iv is always used : E. ii. 4, tXoiktio? iv ixin {rich in 
compassion), Ja. ii. 5. Compare TXouTtiv, TXovTi^itr^eci h -nu, 1 Tim. vi. 18, 1 C. 
i. 5, al. 

- Matthias, Eurip. Hippol. 323. 

^ [These verbs are followed by «ra in modern Greek (Mullach, Vnhj. 
p. 325).] 

* On TXr)6v))iiv a.To, Athen. 13. 569, see Schweighäus. Add. et Corrhj. 

p. 478. — Mt. xxiii. 25, 'i<ru6iv yifiova-iv (the cup and platter) i^ upTecy»; xetl 
uKpatriecs, nmst probably be rendered, are ßlled from rohhery ; they have con- 
tents which are derived from robbery. Luke however transfers the fulness to 
the Pharisees themselves, and hence writes ro 'ia-u6iv vfjLuv yif/.n kpTttyr,? k.t.X. 
So also in Jo. xii. 3, h oUi«. i-rXrpa>^v l» Tr.i Ifffjir,? tov fjLvpov, we must not take 
I» TY.i off/uTJs as standing for a genitive ; these words indicate that out of which 
the filling of the house arose, — it was filed (with fragrance) from (by) the 
odour of the ointment. 

* [Liinemann rightly points to -rXnpovff^Ki Kctp-xov (Ph. i. 11) as a similar con- 
struction. See below, p. 287.] 


fir)Zev\ '•^apLa-[xaTL, it is easy to perceive the writer's conception 
and meaning : compare Plat. Rep. 6. 484 d.^ 

(c) Verbs of toucMng (Matth. 330, Jelf 536 ^), inasmuch as 
the touching affects only d.part of the object : Mk. v. 30, r]->i^aTO 
rwv IfjbaTiwv (vi. 56, L. xxii. 51, Jo. xx. 17, 2 C. vi. 17, al.), 
H. xii. 20, Kciv 6r]pLov Olyt} rov 6pov<; (xi. 28). The construc- 
tion ßdirretv vSaro^;, L. xvi. 24, comes under the same head.^ 

(d) Verbs of taking hold of, where the action is limited to 
Si part of the whole obj-ect : ML xiv. 31, eKTeiva^ rrjv x^lpou 
eireKdßero avrov, compare Theophr. Ch. 4 (with the hand He 
could grasp the sinking man only by a part of the body, pos- 
sibly by the arm), L. ix. 47 : — somewhat differently in Mk. 
ix. 27 [i?ec.], KpaT7]cra<; avrov Tfj<; '^etp6<i' A. iii. 7, 'iridaa<; avrov 
rr](; Sefia? %^^po9 (by the hand), compare Plat. Farm. 126, Xen. 
An. 1. 6, 10. Hence these verbs are commonly used with the 
genitive of a limb, as in L. viii. 54, Kparr)<Ta<i rrj^ X^^/^o? avrrjf;' 
A. xxiii. 19 (Is. xli. 13, xlii. 6, Gen. xix. 16). On the other 
hand, KpareLv,\aiißdv€Lv,OY iirtXapißdveaOaL Tti/a, always means 
to seize a man, i. e. his whole person, to apprehend : ^ Mt. xii. 11, 
xiv. 3, xviii. 28, A. ix. 27, xvL 19. The same distinction is 
observed in the figurative use of these verbs : genitive, — H. 
ii. 16, L. i. 54, 1 Tim. vi. 2 (Xen. Gyr. 2. 3.6) ; accusative, — 
2 Th. ii. 15, Col. ii. 19, al. But Kparelv cling to, H. iv. 14, 
vi. 18, and eirtXxtp^ßdveadai lay hold of, 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19 (^1. 
14. 27), are construed with a genitive : in each case, however, 
the reference is to a possession (o/jLoXoyla, e\7ri<;) designed for 
many, which each man for his own part holds fast or attains. 
See on the whole Matth. 330 sq. ^EiriXaiißdveaOaL, used in a 

^ [To this class belongs also -n-ipiffffivuv abound m, L. xv. 17; in its strictly 
comparative sense (Xeii. An. 4. 8. 11) this word does not directly govern a case 
in the N. T. Here may be mentioned the genitive with verbs which (express 
a notion of comparison, — the genitive of relation (Don. p. 476, Jelf 505 sq.): 
vTipßdxxitv, K. iii. 19 ; v'rtpi;:^uv, I'h. ii. 2 ; Tpoia-Toctr^ai, 1 Tim. iii. 4 ; vcmpiTy 
and ^/»(pipiiv, whi(di however Winer places in a dillerent class, Un the genitive 
after verhs comjjounded with vpo, etc., see § 52, 2. 4. (A. Buttm. p. 168 sq, ).] 

^ [Donaldson takes a dillerent view of this genitive, see p, 483,] 

^ Bernhardy p. 168 (Jelf 540, Obs.). Compare ßx-rTnv tig vlup, Plat. Tim. 
73 e, ^1. 14. 39. 

* [A, Buttmann (p, 160) maintains that WtXa.fjLßä.viff^a.t never really governs 
an accusative. " In all the instances (either in the N. T. or in Greek authors) 
in which such an accusative seems to occur, WtXa.fjtßd.viff6a.i stands connected 
with another transitive verb, so that the accusative (by the ffx,^fji.a. uto koivoZ) 
is jointly dependent on both pr(!(li(;at(;s. " Similarly Meyer (on A, ix, 27). 
Liinemann, in a note introduced in this place, takes the same view, and quotes 
A, xviii, 17 as an additional example,] 


metaphysical sense, is followed by two genitives in L. xx. 20, 
Lva iiTiXaßwvTai avrov Xojou, that they mifj/ht lay hold of him by 
a word, and in ver. 26, iirCkaßeaöai avTov prj^aro^ : so in its 
proper sense Xen. An. 4. 7. 12. Lastly, we must bring in 
here the construction e'^eaOai tlvo^ to cling to, hang on some- 
thing, pendere ex (see Bleek, IJebr. II. ii. 220 sq., Matth. 330, 
Jelf 536, Don. p. 483), and uvri^eadau tlvo^;. In the N. T. 
these two verbs are so used only in the figurative sense : H. 
vi. 9, ra Kpeia-aova koX i-^ofieva crcoTT/pta?' Mt. vi. 24, toO 
ei^o? dvOe^erat koI tov erepou KaTa<^povr]aei' 1 Th. v. 14, avTe- 
'^eaOe rcov aaOevcov Tit. i. 9, ävTe')(Ofjievo<; tov Kara rrjv SiBa^rjv 
TTLarov \6yov. Akin to these is dve^eo-dac tlvo^, to endure any- 
thing or any one, since it properly signifies to hold to something^ 
(Mt. xvii. 17, H. xiii. 22, E. iv. 2), compare Kypke II. 93 : so 
also eVop^o9 (ive'^o/jbevo'^) Tivoli, as in Mt. xxvi. 66, evo-)(0<; Oavdrov, 
or 1 C. xi. 27, €VO')(^o<; rod o-cufxaTo^; Kal tov aLfiaTC^ tov Kvplov 
(Ja. ii. 10), for in all these instances there is denoted a heing 
hound to (something), — in the first example, to a punishment 
which must be suffered, — in the second, to a thing to which 
satisfaction must be given. See Fritz. Matt. p. 223, Bleek, 
H^ebr. II. i. 340 sq.: compare § 31. 1. 

Rem. 1. The partitive genitive is sometimes governed by an 
adverb : H. ix. 7, aira^ rov Iviavrov once in the year^ L. xviii. 12, 
xvii. 4 (Ptol. Geogr. 8. 15. 19, 8. 29. 31, 8. 16. 4, al.) : compare 
Madv. 50 (Jelf 523). 

Rem. 2. The partitive genitive is not always under the government 
of another word : it sometimes appears as the subject of the sentence, 
as in Xen. An. 3. 5. 16, OTrore . . . cnreta-aLVTO kol iTn/jiiyvvcrOaL (rcjiuiv 
T€ TT/jos iK€Lvovs KOL €K€ivoM^ TTpo? avTov?, uud of them (some) kold iutcT- 
course with the Persians, and (some) of the Persians with them ; Thuc. 
1. 115 (Theophan. I. 77). An example from the N. T. is A. xxi. 16, 
(Tvvy]KOov Koi twv /xaOrjTüJv avv rjfuv; compare Pseud-Arist. p. 120 
(Haverc), iv ol? kol ßacriXcKol rjaav koL tcov TLfxoifievcov vtto tov 
ßacn\€(jt)<s. As a rule, however, the genitive is accompanied by a 
preposition in such cases; e.g. Jo. xvi. 17,^ cTttov ck twv ixaOrjrCjv 
avrov k.tX (Jelf 893. e). 

9. It is not difficult to recoornise the genitive as the whence- 

case when it is joined with 

^ [Compare Jelf I. p. 454, Note ; and on tvoxoi, Jelf § 501.] 

' [Liinemann adds Mt. xxviii. 1, i^i (raßßxfuv.] 

3 [Compare also Kev. xi. 9, Jo. vii. 40 (Tisch., al.) : in several passages!* 
with its case occupies the place of the object, as 2 Jo. 4, Rev. ii. 10, Mt. xxiii. 
34, L. xxi. 16 ; compare also Rev. v. 9, if vfieii be omitted. A. Buttm. p. 158 sq., 
Schirlitz, Grundz. p. 250.] 


(a) Verbs of accusing and hnpeacliing {condemning), as the 
genitive of the thing (Matth. 369, Don. p. 479, Jelf 501) ; for 
the crime of which one is accused is that fi^om which the Karrj- 
yopelv proceeds. See A. xix. 40, KivSweuofiev eyicaXelaOaL 
o-Tacre(o<;' xxv. 11, ovSev ecrrtp oyv outol Karrj'yopovaL /uloV L. 
xxiii. 14, ouSev evpov ev tq) avOpcoira) tovtm ainov mv Karrjyopetre 
Kar avTou. (On the other hand, we find 'jrepi tlvo<^ de aliqiia 
re, A. xxiii. 29, xxiv. 13,^ compare Xen. Hell. 1. 7. 2 ; as also 
Kpivecrdai irepi r., A. xxiii. 6, xxiv. 21.) Yet it must not be 
concealed that the two verbs just mentioned have commonly a 
different construction in Greek authors, viz. KaTrjyopelv tlvo^ tc 
(of which construction Mk. xv. 3 cannot well be considered an 
example, compare Lucian, Necyom. 19), and iyKoKelu tlvl tl 
(Matth. 370, Jelf 589. 3).^ 

(b) KaraKav^acrOai, to glory hi a thing (derive glory /rom 
a thing), Ja. ii. 13. The combination eiraivetv rivd Ttvo<; (4 
Mace. i. 10, iv. 4, Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 661) does not occur in 
the N. T. ; for in L. xvi. 8 rij? aSi/cta? must undoubtedly be 
joined with OLKov6fjLo<;, and the object of eiraLvelv is only ex- 
pressed in the clause on (j)povi/jico<; iTrolrjaev.^ In later writers 
/iLaelv also has the genitive of the thing, like iiraivelv ; see 
Liban. Oratt.^. 120 d, Cantacuz. I. 56. (Don. p. 479, Jelf 495.) 

(c) Verbs of exhaling {smelling, hreathing), Matth. 376 
(Don. p. 469, Jelf 484) ; for in o^eiv tlv6<; the genitive denotes 
the material or the substance from whicli the o^eiv emanates. 

* [The constructions of KocTnyopuv in the N. T. are as follows :— 

a. Genitive of person, the charge being either expressed by -^npi (A. xxiv. 13 
only), or left unexpressed ; this is the most common construction. 

b. KcArnyojiuv r/va, Rev. xü. 10 (probably). 

c. Two genitives apj)arently in A. xxiv. 8, xxv. 11 (compare Dem, Mid. 3, 

'7rapavo[jt,ujy ulrov x,a.Triyopih) ; but it is probable that uv stands for TOVTuv a, 

(by attraction), so that we have the regular construction xwryjyopiTv t! nvo; : 
hence we need not take toXXo. and töV« in Mk. xv. 3, 4, as semi-adverbial accu- 
satives, but may consider them examples of the same kind. 

d. Karvjyopiiii t/ xara rtvoi, L. xxüi. 14 {uv for tovtuv a). In several pas- 
sages this verb is used absolutely. — Yia.Ta.iJt,a.pTvpiiv is followed by a genitive 
of the person, — with ri (Mt. xxvi. 62, Mk. xiv. 60), -Tf'offot. Mt. xxvii. 13 : 
KecTxyivuaKuv by a genitive of the person only. (In part, from A. Buttmann 
p. 165.)] 

^ How xuTYiyopi7v (properly, to affirm or maintain against some one) comes 
to have a genitive of the pemon (Mt. xii. 10, L. xxiii. 2, al.) is obvious; but 
Kccrayiv&xTKnv Ttvo; 1 Jo. iü. 20, 21, is exactly similar (Matth. 378). For iyxxXiTv 
r/v/ (Ecclus. xlvi. 19) we find in Rom. viii. 33 iyKa.Xi7v Kara, nvo;, whicli is as 
easily explained as xartiyoptTv I'/s nva Maetzn. Antipli. 207. {^EyKxXiTv nvi 
occurs in the N. T. also, A. xix. 38, xxiii. 28.] 

•* On this construction see (Sintenis, in the) Ldpz. L. Z. 1833, I. 1135. 


The only N. T. example is one in which the verb is used figura- 
tively, viz. A. ix. 1, e/jLTTfecDv aTretX^ys^ koI (j)6vov, hrcathing of 
thrcatcniiKj and murder: compare Aristoph. Eq. 437, ovto<^ 
rjZr} KaKta^ koX avKO(j)avTLa<; nrvel' Ileliod. 1. 2, Ephraem. 2358. 
Different from this are <f)ovov irveovre^ Theocr. 22. 82, and 
6vfjLou ifCTTvicov Ear. JJacch. G20 ; here the simple object is 
expressed {hrcathuig murder, courage), and the verbs are treated 
as transitive. (Jelf 540. Ohs) 

10. There appears to be a somewhat wider departure from 
the nature of the genitive, when this case is used with 

{a) Verbs oi feeling, to denote the object towards which the 
feeling is directed ; as aTrXay^vl^ecrOal tlvo<; Mt. xviii. 27. In 
German, however, we have the genitive construction (sich 
jemandes erharmen), and in Greek the object was certainly 
regarded as exerting an influence on the person who feels, and 
consequently as the point /rö??z luhicli the feeling proceeds, i.e. 
from which it is excited. Yet most of these verbs take the 
accusative, the relation being differently conceived : see § 32. 1, 
and Härtung p. 20 (Jelf 488). 

(h) Verbs of longing and desiring (Matth. 350, Jelf 498^). 
"With these verbs we commonly express the object towards or on 
which the desire is fixed. But in eTndvfielv rtvo^;, as conceived 
by the Greeks (if w^e except those combinations in which the 
genitive may be considered partitive, as eTTidviielv (ro(f)La^, to 
desire of wisdom), the longing and the desire were regarded 
as proceeding from the object desired, the object sending forth 
from itself to the subject the incitement to desire. In the IST. T. 
iiTLOvfjiecv always takes the genitive (a variant being noted in 
Mt. V. 28 only ^), as A. xx. 33, apyvplov rj '^puaLou rj ifiarLo-fiov 
ovSevo^ iireOvfjiTjaa (1 Tim. iii. 1) : so also 6pey6a6ai, 1 Tim. 
iii. 1, 6L Tt? i7rL(TK07rrj<i opeyerat, koKov epyov iirLOvfiec (Isocr. 
Demon, p. 24, 6pe^6r}vaL tcov Kokwv epywv Lucian, Tim. 70), 
H. xi. 16 ; and ifieipeadat, 1 Th. ii. 8 [Bee.]. In the LXX, also, 
and in the Apocrypha (Wis. vi. 12, 1 Mace. iv. 17, xi. 11, al.) 
eTndvjjLelv tlvo^ {opeyeaOac does not occur) is the usual con- 

^ [Compare Don. p. 484, where reasons are given for taking a different view 
of the nature of this genitive. ] 

2 [Here avrriv is much better supported than «wt??. Tisch, in ed. 8 omits the 
pronoun, which is placed within brackets by Westcott and Hort.] 


struction ; but the verb is already beginning to take an accusa- 
tive, as a transitive verb, e.g. Ex. xx. 17, Dt. v. 21, vii. 25, Mic. 
ii. 2, Job xxxiii. 20, — compare Wis. xvi. 3, Ecclus. xvi. 1. Even 
in earlier Greek the verb eirLiroOelv is always followed by an 
accusative (because the verb was in thought resolved into nroOelv 
or 7r66ov e^etv eirl re, towards something, compare Eritz. Bo7n. I. 
31), Plat. Lcgj. 9. 855 e, Diod. S. 17. 101 ; compare 2 C. ix. 
14, Ph. i. 8, 1 P. ii. 2 (Jelf I.e. Obs. 2). neLvijv and Sifrjv also, 
which in Greek writers are regularly followed by a genitive, 
take an accusative in the N. T. (in a figurative sense, with refer- 
ence to spiritual blessings); see Mt. v. 6, ireivwvTe^ koX St-v/rwi/re? 
Tr]v hiKaLoarvvr)v} and compare (piXocro(j)iav Styfr. Epist. Soer. 25, 
53 (Allat.). The distinction between the two constructions is 
obvious : Si'yjrijv (f)t\ocro(f)la<; is to thirst towards philosophy, whilst 
in Sc-^jrrjv (J)lXo(t 0(f) lav philosophy is regarded as an indivisible 
whole, into the possession of which one desires to come. Most 
closely connected with these verbs are 

(c) Verbs of thinking of, remembering (Matth. 347, Don. p. 
4G8, Jelf 515) : L. xvii. 32, fjivrj/jLovevere T7]<; yuvaifco<; Acot' i. 72, 
fjbvrjaOrjvac Sia6r)Kr)^' A. xi. 16, 1 C. xi. 2, L. xxii. 61, H. xiii. 3, 
Jude 17, 2 P. iii. 2. (On the other hand viro^ifxvrjcrKeiv riva 
irepi Ttw9, 2 P. i. 12.) We also use the genitive in German to 
express thinking of a thing, for this operation is no other than 
grasping, taking hold of something with the memory. Ana- 
logous to this is to be forgetful of a thing: H. xii. 5, iKXeXrjcrOe 
rr}? irapaick'qaew'^' vi. 10, iircXaOeaßai rod epyov v/jlu>v' xiii. 
2, 16. Yet we often find the accusative with dvafxip^vrjaKeo-dat, 
H. x. 32, 2 C. vii. 15, Mk. xiv. 72, and with fivTjfioveveiv, Mt. 
xvi. 9, 1 Th. ii. 9, Ptev. xviii. 5 (Matth. I. c. Eem. 2, Jelf 515) ; 
but rather in the sense of having a, thing present to the mind, 
holding in remembrance (Bernh. p. 1 7 7). ^EinXavOdveaOaL also 
takes an accusative in Ph. iii. 14, as sometimes in the LXX (Dt. 
iv. 9, 2 K. xvii. 38, Is. Ixv. 16, Wis. ii. 4, Ecclus. iii. 14 '^) and 
even in Attic Greek (Matth. I. c., Jelf 515). This twofold con- 
struction rests on a difference in the view which is taken of the 

1 In the LXX this verb i.s found with a dative, Ex. xvii. 3, iVi^nfi^ o Xuos 
uiitrt {towards water). In Ps. Ixii. 2 also Vat. has Wt^nffi a-ot {6iu, al. en) n 

\^w;^»7 fjt,ev. 

* [in Wis. ii. 4 and Ecclus. iii. 14 Wi\, docs not govern an accusative.] 


relation, a difTercnce wliicli also shows itself in Latin. Verbs of 
making mention of do not take a genitive in the N. T. : ^ we find 
instead /jLVTj/jLovevecu irepl, 11. xi. 22 ; compare jutfjLvijaKeadaL 
TrepiXen. Cyr. 1. G. 12, Pliit. Pxdag. 9. 2,7, Tob. iv. 1. 

{d) The transition is easy to verbs which signify to care 
for or to neglect anything (Matth. 348, Jelf 496) : L. x. 34, 
€7r€ß€\7]0Tj auTov (1 Tim. iii. 5), 1 C. ix. 9, /jltj tojv ßoSiv fieXet, 
Ta> Seep; (A. xviii. 17,' Hut. Pxdag. 17. 22), Tit. iii. 8, Tva 
(j)povT 1^(0(7 c KokoüV epycov'^ 1 Tim. v. 8, rwu Ihloiv ov irpovoel' 
1 Tim. iv. 14, fxr] a/ubeXec rod iv ao\ '^^^apla/jLaro^ (H. ii. 3), H. 
xii. 5, ar] oXi.ycopeo Traiheia^ KvpLov. To this head belongs also 
^eßecrOat^ (Matth. 348, Jelf/. c): A. xx. 29, fxr] (f)etS6/jL€voL rov 
TTOLfjiVLOv, not sparing the flock ; 1 C. vii. 28, 2 P. ii. 4, al. But 
/xeXet is also used with irepl, Mt. xxii. 16, Jo. x. 13, xii. 6, al. 
(Her. 6. 101,Xen. Cyr. 4. 5. 17, Hiero 9. 10, al., Wis. xii. 13, 
1 Mace. xiv. 43).^ 

(e) Lastly, verbs of ruling (Matth. 359, Don. p. 476, Jelf 
505) take the genitive, as the simple case of dependence, — for 
the notion of going hefore or leading (Härtung p. 1 4) reduces 
itself to this : Mk. x. 42, ol SoKovvTe<; äp')(eiv tojv iOvcav Kara- 
KvpLevovaiv avTwv' Eom. xv. 12 (from the LXX). Compare 
also Kvpieveiv Rom. xiv. 9, 2 C. i. 24, avdevrelv 1 Tim. ii. 12, 
KaraSuvaareveLv Ja. ii. 6, avOvirareveiv A. xviii. 12, etc. ; these 
verbs are merely derivatives from nouns, and the construction 
resolves itself into Kvpiov tlvo^ eivai, avOviraTov Tivoli elvat,.^ 
Yet ßaaCkevetv tlvo^ (Her. 1.206 and LXX) never occurs in the 
N. T. ; ^ in its stead we find the Hebraistic expression (^V being 
used with verbs of -ruling, Ps. xlvii. 9, Pro v. xxviii. 15, ISTeh. v. 
1 5) ßaaCkeveiv iirl rivo^, Mt. ii. 22, Rev. v. 1 0, or ßaa. iirl rtva, 
L. i. 33, xix. 14, 27, Rom. v. 14 : compare Lob. p. 475. 

^ [This is a question of interpretation : some of the best commentators take 
fivvf/.oyiv'.fv in this sense in H. xi. 15, where the verb governs a genitive.] 

2 [If ovViv be taken adverbially : but it is surely simpler to consider ovYiv the 
subject of if/.iXiv, and tovtuv dependent on ouliv (Jelf 496. Obs. 2).] 

^ [Similarly A»£^//«v>j(r£/ savr^;, Mt. vi. 34.] 

* In Latin, parcere alicui. In the Greek (püli(T$oii, if we may judge from the 
construction, there is rather the notion of restraining oneself/rom, sibi temperare 
a. In the LXX, however, this verb is also construed with the dative and with 

^ Compare Strange in Jahns Archiv II. 400. 

^ [In A. xviii. 12, just quoted, the preferable reading is a-vovrxrov o>"7«j.] 

' [In Mt. ii. 22 we should probably read ßx<rikivu ttj; 'lou^ala,;.] 



Verbs of hiying and selling take the genitive of the price (Bernh. 
p. 177 sq., Madv. 65, Don. p. 478, Jelf 519) : Mt. x. 29, ovxt 8vo 
(TTpovOia daaaptov TTwAetrat' xxvi. 9, rjSvvaro tovto TrpaOrjvaL ttoAXotj* 
XX. 13, Mk. xiv. 5, A. v. 8 (Plat. ApoL 20 b), 1 C. vi. 20 (compare 
Eev. vi. 6), Bar. i. 10, iii. 30 (but in Mt. xxvii. 7, yyopaaav e^ avTwv, 
seil, apyvpiuiv' A. i. 18), A. vii. 16, oiV-qa-aTO tlixt]<; apyvpiov (with Ik 
in Palseph. 46. 3, 4). Under this head comes also Jude 11, t^ TrXdvrj 
TovBaXadfji fjiicrOov i^exvOrjcrav, for reward (Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 7, Plat. 
Hep. 9. 575 b). This construction with ck, and still more a con- 
sideration of the primary meaning of the genitive, might lead us to 
refer this genitive of price to the notion of proceeding from, since 
that which is bought etc. for a price, proceeds for us, so to speak, 
out of the price (or equivalent) which is given for it. But it is 
probably nearer the truth to think of the genitive of exchange, and 
of such expressions as dXXao-o-av rt nvos (Härtung p. 15, Matth. 364, 
Don. I. c, Jelf 520) ; for the object bought or sold is set over against 
so much money, ^ and hence in Greek dvTc is the preposition of price. ^ 
The construction dAA-ao-cretv, SiaXAao-o-etv tl tlvo<s, does not itself occur 
in the Greek Bible : in Eom. i. 23 we find instead the more vivid 
phrase aXXda-o-etv Ti eV TLVL, by which in Ps. cv. 20 the LXX render the 
Hebrew 2 "i''On. The nearest approach to this is found in oAAacrcreci/ 

Tt TLvi, which occurs Her. 7. 152 and often in the LXX (Ex. xiii. 13, 
Lev. xxvii. 10, al.). Words of valuing, estimation, etc., belong to 
the same category as verbs of buying and selling, and, like them, 
govern the genitive, — to esteem worthy of a thing (Kriig. p. 53, Don. 
/. c, Jelf 521) : compare d^tos Mt. iii. 8, x. 10, Rom. i. 32 ; d^Lovu 
2 Th. i. 11, 1 Tim. v, 17, H. iii. 3, and frequently. 

11. The genitive of place and of time : as ^sch. Prom. 714 
\acä<i '^eipb<; cnSrjpoTeKTOve^; oIkovctl XaXvße^;, on the left hand ^ 
(Her. 5. 77), Xen. Eph. 5. 13 eVetV?;? t^? rj/juepa^;, on that day, 
Philostr. Her. 9. 3 sq. x^ifioovo^ in winter, Thuc. 3. 104 (Matth. 
377, Don. p. 471, Jelf 522 sq.). This genitive is not governed 
directly by any particular word, but its relation to the con- 
struction of the sentence is quite clear ; and there is in it no- 
thing alien to the primary meaning of the genitive case.* The 
N. T. writers almost always insert a preposition : their use of 

^ [The German preposition gegen (over against) is used with verbs of buying, 
etc., in tlie sense /or, in exchange for, and thus closely resembles avr/.] 

^ A diderent view will be found in Herrn. Opusc. I. 179. See on the other 
hand Prüfer, De G'rceca et Lat. Deciinatione 98 sq. [Lünemann adds : com- 
pare H. xii. 2, 16.] 

^ [In the phrases which are translated in this seetion Winer is able to imitate 
the Greek construction by using the German genitive : with roZ XoitoZ ho com- 
pares the German des weitem. — Compare Mätzner, Eng. Lang. I. 389 sqq., 
Morris, IUhL Outl. pp. 193, 196.] 

* Herrn. V^ig. p. 881, Härtung p. 32 sqq. 


llie simple genitive of place or time (which is properly a parti- 
tive genitive) is almost confined to certain standing formulas : 
thus we often meet with vvkt6<: hy night, also fie(T'q<; vvkto<; Mt. 
XXV. 6,yfj,€pa<; Kal vvfcrof; L. xviii. 7, A. ix. 24 (Xen. An. 2. 6. 
7) ; ;\;e6^wi^o? Mt. xxiv. 20 (connected with aaßßdrw) ; opOpov 
ßa6eo<; L. xxiv. 1 ; fir) evpovre'^, 7roLa<^ (oBov) eUeve<yKwaLv avrov, 
L. V. 19, hi/ tcliat way, liceivT]^ (seil. oSoO) L. xix. 4 ; tov Xoiirov 
G. vi. 17 (Thuc. 4. 98). For this reason — because the use of 
the genitive of time is limited in the N. simple and familiar 
formulas — we cannot render r^fiepoyv TeaaapaKovTa in A. i. 3 
(with the reading of D) within forty days (Matth. 377. 2. b) : 
see above 2. a. To express this meaning Luke would cer- 
tainly have used a preposition. 

E-ev. xvL 7, rjKova-a tov Ovcnaa-TrjpLov XiyovTo<;, must certainly not 
be brought in here (/ heard one speaking from the altar, — compare 
Soph. El. 78, Bernh. p. 137).'' In accordance with analogous sen- 
tences in ver. 5 and vi. 3, 5, the words must be rendered, / heard the 
altar speak (see Bengel in loc.) ; and this prosopopoäia well suits the 
strangely mysterious character of these visions : see De Wette. The 
other reading, yjKova-a aXXov eK tov OvcnacrT. Xeyovro?, is a palpable 
correction. On Tt/?eptaSo?, Jo. vi. 1, see above, page 239. 

Rem. The genitive absolute is of frequent occurrence in the 
historical style of the N. T. In its original application this is not 
an absolute case in the proper sense of the word, but depends on the 
use of the genitive for definitions of time (compare Härtung p. 31 -) : 
hence the corresponding absolute case in Latin is the ablative. It is 
however used with a more extended reference, especially to assign 
the cause and the condition, — both relations which are expressed by 
the genitive. The only point needing remark here is, that a genitive 
absolute is sometimes used where the nature of the following verb 
would lead us to expect a diff'erent oblique case : L. xvii. 12 [Bee], 
ilsep)(Ofj.€vov avTov . . . aTryjvTrjcrav avrcS, xxii. 10, 53, XVIU. 40, 
cyytcravTOS avrov i7rr]p(i)Tr](Tev avTOV' Mk. XI. 27, A. IV. 1, XXI. It, 
2 C. xii. 21,^ Jo. iv. 51. Examples of this kind are also common 
in Greek authors, partly because when the sentence was commenced 
the principal verb was not yet determined on, partly because the 
more regular construction would in many cases render the expression 
clumsy: compare Her. 1. 41, Thuc. 1. 114, 3. 13, Xen. An. 2. 4. 

^ Erfurdt, Soph. (Ed. B. 142, Bnttm. Philoct. 115. 

2 [Compare Jelf 541, Don. p. 485.] 

3 [With the reading ixiövro? fAov rccrnvuffri ft.i : in the later MSS. the con- 
struction is made regular. So in Rev. xvii. 8, quoted below, Rec. has the more 
regular ^XiTfotrn, for /3X£tövt(iov (Tisch., al.). On this irregularity see Jelf 710, 
and especially A. Buttmann p. 314 sqq.] 

260 THE DATIVE. [part III. 

24, Mem. 4. 8. 5, Pol. 4. 49. 1, Xen. Eph. 4. 5, Heliod. 2. 30. 113.1 
In 2 C. iv. 18 also, for alwvtov ßapos 80^179 Karepya^erat r]fx7v, fxrj 
cTKOTTovvTwv yfxü)v TO. ßXeTTOfxeva, Paul might have written fxr] o-ko- 
7rov(TL ra ßX. ; but the former construction brings out the participial 
member with more prominence and force : compare Xen. Cyr. 6. 1. 
37. Lastly, we find exceptional instances of the use of a genitive 
absolute where the principal sentence has the same subject (in the 
nominative) as the subordinate sentence ; as Mt. i. 1 8, /xv^^o-TevöetVi;? 
Trj<s iJLr]Tpb<s avTov Mapt'a? tw 'Iwcrr^^, -Trplv -J) o-vveXOetv avTOV<;, ivpiOrj 
iv yaa-Tpl ex^vcra, where the writer probably had in his mind another 
mode of finishing the sentence. So perhaps in Rev. xvii. 8. Such 
instances as these are rare in Greek authors : see however Her. 5. 81, 
Plat. Bejy. 8. 547 b, Pol. 31. 17. 1 ; and compare Poppo, Thiic. I. 
119 sq., Wannowsld p. 61 sqq. In the LXX see Gen. xliv. 4, Ex. 
iv. 21, V. 20, xiv. 18 : compare Acta Apocr. pp. 68, 69, Epiphan. Vit. 
pp. 326, 340, 346 (in the 2d volume of Epiphan. 0pp. : ed. Colon.), 
and in Latin, Suet. Tib. 31. In all these examples the genitive 
absolute is employed as a regularly established construction, the 
grammatical origin of which was no longer considered. ^ 

Section XXXI. 


In Greek the dative is a more comprehensive case than in 
Latin, representing, as it does, the Latin ablative as well as 
the Latin dative.^ In general, however, its connexion with the 
sentence is not so close and necessary as that of the accusative 
or even of the genitive : its office is merely to complete and 

1 Wyttenbach, Phit. Mor. IT. 21, Scliaef. Apollon. Rh. IT. 171, and Demosth. 
II. 202, Poppo, Tliuc. I. 2, 119, Siebelis, Pausan. II. 8, Hoffmann, Pr. deCasih. 
Ahsol. p. 1. Compare tlie Latin ablatives absolute in Cic. Phil. 11. 10, Fam. 
15. 4. 18, Cffisar, Bell. Gall. 5. 4, Civ. 1. 36, 2. 19, 3. 21. 

^ [lip. Ellicott has some general remaiT<s on the N. T. use of the genitive 
with the noun, in his Essay on "Scripture, and its interpretation" {Aids to 
Faith, p. 462 S([.). Besides the genitive of apposition or identity (§ 59. 8. a), 
of remoter reference (§ 30. 2), of (quality (§ 34. 3. b), ho specifies *' a widely 
extended use" of this case "to denote the ideas of origination (Rom. iv. 13, 
'hix.c/.ioffvvn -rWriMi), and not unfre(iuently of definite agency (2 Th. ii. 13, 
».yirATfLOi lUi6f/,a,ros)," — Upon this see es[)ecially his note on 1 Th. i, 6 ; and a 
smaller class of examples "in which ideas, so to si)eak, of ethical substance or 
contents appear to pr(;domiiiat(! (K. i. 13, uXriduas and <rurnpta;)." See also 
Green, Or. pp. 87-98, Webster, Si/nt. pp. 67-77, for notices of many passages.] 

^ Compare Ilerm. Emend. Rat. p. 140. [On the radical force of the dative 
see Don. p. 486, Jelf 471, 586, Clyde, Gr. Synt. p. 35. On the dative in the 
N. T. see Green pp. 98-102, Webster, Sijnl. pp. 76-79, Ellicott ils.] 


extoiul, by indicating the object (in most cases the iicrsonal 
object) at which an action is aimed, which an action concerns, 
but which is not directly afTected by the action. Hence we often, 
find this case in conjunction with the accusative of the object, 
as in 2 C. ix. 2, irpodv/jbla rjv Kav^M/iai, MaKeSoatv A. xxii. 
25, irpoeTeivav avrov roc^; Ifiäo-iv (see KUhnol),^ xxiv. 5, Jo. 
vi. 13. In a loose application the dative is used (of things) 
to denote whatever accompanies the action, as motive, power, 
circumstance (of time or place), etc. 

1. We first consider the dative as the case of reference (of 
the more remote object, as it is usually expressed), both in its 
connexion with transitive verbs — as ScSovat {hcopelaOai) tl tlvc, 
'ypd(j)€iv TL TiVL (2 C. ii. 3), eva^<yeki^e(T6aL nvi tl (L. ii. 10, 2 C. 
xi. 7), 6(J)€l\€lv tlvl tl (Mt. xviii. 28, Eom. xiii. 8, compare Eom. 
i. 14, viii. 12, but contrast xv. 27), o/molovv tlvcl tlvl (Mt. vii. 24, 
xi. 16), KaTaXkacraeiv tlvcl tlvl (2. C. v. 18), iyelpeLv OXl^lv rot? 
heapLol^ (Ph. i. 17), all which instances are entirely free from 
difficulty; — and especially as joined with intransitive verbs and 
adjectives allied to these. The force of the dative is more or less 

(a) In aKoXovOelv tlvl, iyjl^eLv, KoXXaaOal, aTOL'x^elv (Eom. iv. 
12, aL), SeBiaOaL (Eom. vii. 2, 1 C. vii. 27), evTvy^dveLv tlvl, 
etc. ; also in €i)')(eadai tlvl, A. xxvi. 29. (Jelf 522 sq.) 

(b) In fiepLfivav tlvl^ (Mt. vi. 25), opyL^eaOaL (Mt. v. 22), 
fieTpLoiradelv tdvl (H. v. 2), iie/u^cpeadaL (H. viii. 8,* see Krug, 
p. 25, Jelf 589), ^Oovely G. v. 26. (Jelf 596, 601.) 

(c) In TTLaTeveLV tlvl, 'TreiroLÖevaL^ dirLaTelv, äireLdelv, vira- 
KoveLV^ v7nJKo6<;, ivavTLo<;, etc. (Jelf 593.) 

(d) In irpo^Kwelv tlvl, XaTpeveLV (not in Ph. iii. 3), EovKovv. 
(Jelf 596.) 

^ [Unless TOis t/zairiv be taken as instrument, see Alford. Against Kühnöl's 
rendering of -rporuviiv {tradere) see Bornem. Luc. p. 181 sq., Meyer in loc] 

2 [The references in the text to Jelf's Gr. apply to most of the words in the 
various classes ; for ivx,i<r6ai, Ivroyx^oivuv, see 589 ; IvccvtIos, 601 ; ^tvi^iträai, 
607 ; 3cotvik)v-7v, 588 ; ofukiTv, 590. In. Donaldson's classification, c, d, e (with. 
ivxiff^ci, but not Evayr/flj), would comc under the "dative of the recipient" (pp. 
493-495); xp^'^^'^h " instrumental dative " (p. 491); most of the other words 
under the " dative of coincidence or contingency " (p. 486 sqq.).] 

^ [Also fjiipifMvrttTu TO. ^£^< vfjt.ajv, Ph. Ü. 20 (1 C. vii. 32) ; iJi.ifi[x.\Y,cu eayr^j, 

Mt. vi. 34, like (pfc^r^lu^ t/v«j, § 30. 10. (A. Buttm. p. 186.)] 

* [Here avToiJi is strongly supported : some (e. g. Bleek, Kurtz) who read 

itlroli join it with x'lyii. — The dative is similarly used with i-7ttTt[x.a.v, lyKctXiiv, 

t/xßpi/u,uir^ai : A. Buttm. p. 177.] 
^ [The dative with IxtI^uv in Mt. xii. 21 either folloAvs the analogy of these 

verbs (A. Buttm. p. 176), or belongs to No. 6 c (so Meyer).] 


(e) In apeaKeiv tlvI [evapearelv, H. xi. 5], apKelv (Mt. xxv. 
9, 2 C. xii. 9), äptcerö^ and Uavo^, Mt. vi. 34, 1 P. iv. 3, 
2 C. ii. 6. (Jelf 594, 596.) 

(/) Then in ^evl^eaeai tlvl, 1 P. iv. 12 (Time. 4. 85), he 
astonished at a thing (the astonishment is directed towards the 
thing); äiroXoyelaOal (2 C xii. 19, A. xix. 33, compare 1 P. iii. 
15), and hiaXeyeaOai tlvl, A. xvii. 2, xviii. 19 ; BcaKareXiyx^- 
aöal TLVL, A. xviii. 28 (hoyfiaTi^eiv tlvl, compare Col. ii. 20); 
where the dative indicates the person to whom the conversation 
or defence is addressed. Likewise ofioXoyeiv and e^o/jioXoyet- 
o-ßal TLVL (Ja. V. 16), even with the signification ^praise (^ '^l^'"'), 
L. X. 21, Eom. xiv. 11, H. xiii. 15 ; for every act of praise to 
God is a confession made to Him that we acknowledge Him as 
the High and Glorious One. (Jelf 589, 594.) 

Once, in Ptev. xix. 5, the best MSS. have the construction 
alvelv Tti^/ (compare Ecclus. Ii. 12) : probably ^ nnin was before 
the writer's mind, — unless indeed alvelv is here construed ad 
sensum, as equivalent to elirelv aiveaiv. 

(g) In KplveaOai (Mt. v. 40) and haKplvecrOal tlvl Jude 9 
(Jer. XV. 10), go to lavj, contend against or with. (Jelf 601.) 

Qi) Somewhat differently in the verbs of equality or likeness ; 
as Mt. xxiii. 27, ofioLa^eTe Td(f)OL<^ KeKoviafxevoif;' vi. 8, H. ii. 17, 
2 C. X. 12 ; compare 6fioL6<;, tao<; tlvl, Mt. xi. 16, Jo. ix. 9, 1 
Jo. iii. 2, A. xiv. 15, Mt. xx. 12, Ph. ii, 6 ^ (once 6/jlol6<; tlvo^, 
Jo. viii. 55, — Matth. 386, comp. § 30. 4): also in verbs of 
participating in, 1 Tim. v. 22, 1 P. iv. 13 (compare L. v. 10, 
Eom. XV. 27), though these verbs more commonly take the 
genitive (§ 30.8): similarly o/xtXeti^Tm, A. xxiv. 26. (Jelf 594.) 

(^) In the verbs of iising, as xpV<^^^h A. xxvii. 17,10. ix. 
12, 15. Once however (in 1 C. vii. 31) this verb has an accu- 
sative in the best MSS.,^ as sometimes in the later writers, e.g. 
Malal. p. 5, Theophan. p. 314, Böckh, Corp. Inscript. IL 405, 
(but not Xen. Ages. 11. 11), compare Bornem. Acta p. 222: in 
A. xxvii. 17 there is little authority for the accusative. (Jelf 

^ Com}). FritzsolKj, Arist. Amk. p. 15 : [on xotvuvuv, Green, Gr. p. 102.] 
^ [A. Jiiittni, (p. 181 8(1.) suggests tliat the accusative may have been occa- 
.sioned by the verb which immediately follows {xa.rx^pujfx.ivoi), xofffjt.ov being 
regarded as in some measure dependent on both verbs {ktto koivoZ) : similarly 
Meyer. K«Ta;^^^<r^a< takes an accusative in later writers.] 


(Jc) In ori}K€LV (e(TT7]K€vai) Tivi, standfast to a, tiling (2 C.i. 24, 
G. V. 1 T. /.), or to a person, Eom. xiv. 4.^ (Jelf 590.^ 

npo9KW€ti/ {reverence, worship) is always followed by a dative in 
Matthew, Mark, and Paiil-^ (for Mt. iv. 10 is a quotation from Dt. vi. 
13) ; in the rest of the N. T. we find sometimes the dative (Jo. ix. 
38, A. vii. 43, H. i. 6, Rev. iv. 10, vii. 11, xiii. 4, al.), sometimes 
the accusative (L. iv. 8, xxiv. 52, Jo. iv. 23, Rev. ix. 20, xiv. 11) : 
similarly yorvTrcrcti/ tlvo. in Mk. (i. 40) x. 17, Mt. xvii. 14 (and some- 
times Aarper^ti/ tlvol : Matth. 392. Rem., Jelf 553. c). The construction 
of irposKvvilv with a dative is peculiar to later Greek (Lob. p. 463).* — 
Xaipetv, which by the Greeks is more frequently construed with the 
dative (Fritz. JRom. III. 78 sq.), as it is sometimes in the LXX (Pr. xvii. 
19, compare Bar. iv. 37), has never this construction in the N. T., 
being usually accompanied by eVt over: on Rom. xii. 12 see below, 
no. 7 : in 1 C. xiii. 6 the dative depends on avv. — The phrases 
a7ro6av€LV rfj afxapTLa, ro) vo/uo) (Rom. vi. 2, G. ii. 19), 6ava- 
TovaOaL TO) vofxu) (Rom. VÜ. 4), v€Kpbv eTvat rfj dfx. (vi. 11), opposed 
to Irjv TivL (ru) Ö€(p Rom. vi. 10, compare 1 P. iv. 10^), signify 
to have died or to be dead to sin, to the law (for sin, for the law) ; 
compare Rom. vii. 4, ci? to y^vecrOai vp-as krepii^' 1 P. ii. 24, ctTro- 
yeveaOaL rfj ap^apria. In the same way we find in Rom. vi. 20 
iXevOepoL rfj St/catocrwT;, in antithesis to SovXovaOai rrj Slk. (ver. 18, 
compare ver. 19, 20): ivhen ye were servants of sin ye were free with 
reference to righteousness, to righteousness ye were in the relation 
of free men. (Jelf 599.) 

We must also recognise a dativus rei of direction in the phrase 
KaraKpLvecv tlvol OavaTio, Mt. XX. 18 (compare 2 P. ii. 6^), to sentence 
some one to death, i. e. to assign to death by a sentence. This con- 

1 [The reading of G. v. 1 is most fully discussed by Lightfoot {Gal. p. 197), 
who — witli most recent editors — rejects f, and takes ffrrKin absolutely. If «? 
be retained, it is probably a dative of reference to (no. 6), see Ellicott in loc. : 
similarly in 2 C. i. 24 (Meyer). In Eom. xiv. 4 the dative appears rather to 
come under no. 4. h, than to stand in close connexion with the verb.] 

2 [On the dative with compound verbs, see § 52.] 

^ [Excluding 0. T. quotations (with which A. vii. 43 may be reckoned, for the 
words 'rp'iixvn7v ocvTol?, though not found in Am. v. 26, seem to be a reminiscence 
of other familiar passages), we find 56 examples of this word in the N. T. In 
16 the word is used absolutely; in two (Jo. iv. 22) the omission of the demon- 
strative makes the construction doubtful. In the remaining passages, the dative 
(probably) occurs 28, the accusative 10 times. Hence in the N. T., as in the 
LXX, the dative construction is the more common, TiposKwuv occurs most 
frequently in St. Matthew's Gospel and the Revelation. In the former book we find 
the dative only ; in the latter the dative seems to occur 13, the accusative 6 times. 
The remaining examples are Mk. xv. 19, Jo. iv. 21, 23, ix. 38, 1 C. xiv. 25 
(dative) ; Mk. v. 6, L. xxiv. 52, Jo. iv. 23, 24 (accusative). It seems almost 
impossible to believe that in a single verse (Jo. iv. 23) this word can have both 
constructions without any variation of meaning : at all events we may recognise 
that the accusative expresses a connexion between verb and object closer than 
that expressed by the dative construction. Compare p. 248, note ^, p. 263, note ^.j 

* Compare Bos, Exercitatt. Philol. p. 1 sqq., Kypke, Ohs. I. 7 sq. 

^ [Perhaps intended for 1 P. iv. 6 : the reference is wrong as it stands. ] 

^ [That is "condemned them to overthrow" (Huther, Alford, al.).] 


st ruction is not found in Greek writers, who use KaraKptvuv nva 
Oavdrov, or Odvarov (Mattb. 370. Eem. 3, Heupel, Mark. 285), or 
KaraKp. rivl Odvarov, Her. 6. 85 (to adjudge death to).^ An analogous 
phrase is KaTahKdt,€.iv nvk Oavdroi (Lob. p. 485). Compare also 'ivoxo'i 
rrj Kpiaei, Mt. V. 21, 22, subject to the judgment (S 30. 8) : compare 
Bleek, Hebr. II. i. 340. 

2. Most closely connected with this is the dative wliicb is 
dependent on ehao (vwdp'^etv) and ylveadai, — not on any pre- 
dicate joined wdtli these verbs ; for iari or jiveraL* jlioc c^oßo^ 
can only mean, that the (poßov elvai or ylveaOac applies to or 
concerns me. 

(a) "Without a predicate ehai Tivb expresses belonging to 
(possession), 'ylveaOal tlvl denotes becoming the property of: L. 
ii. 7, ovK Tjv avToh totto^, they had not room ; A. viii. 21, x. 6, 
iii. 6, xxi. 23, Mt. xviii. 12, L. i. 14, eWat p^a/)a aob- Mt. xvi. 
22, 01) fjLT) earai croc tovto, this ivill not befall thee; A. xx. 3, 16, 
ii. 43, ijivero 'jrdcrrj ^v^fj <^o/5o9, fear fell on; Eom. xi. 25. 
With an eUipsis, 1 C. vi. 13, v. 12, 2 C, vi. 14, Jo. ii. 4 (Krug, 
p. 69, Jelf 597). 

(b) With a predicate (usually a substantive) elvai or ^ylvecöaL 
TivL denotes what quality the thing spoken of has or receives 
for some one, either objectively or subjectively (in his opinion) : 

1 C. viii. 9, iirjirw^ t) i^ovala .... irpo'^KOfifxa fyevrjrat TOL<i 
aaoeveaiv' i. 18, o \o«yo'^ o rod crravpov tol<; jxev dTroXXv/juevoLf; 
ixwpla iariv k.tX, ix. 2, xiv. 22, Eom. ii. 14, vii. 13, 1 C. iv. 3, 
ix. 3, Ph. i. 28 (Jelf 600, 602). But to express turn to, prove 
(Kriig. p. 69), the IST. T. writers commonly use ehai, or jlveadat 
eh Tt. 

3. Substantives derived from verbs which govern a dative 
are sometimes followed by this case, instead of the ordinary 
genitive : 2 C. ix. 12, evxapcariai rw 6ea> (but not in ver. 11), 
somewhat like evxal rol^ Oeol^ Vlat Zegg. 7. 800 a^ (Jelf 588, 
597, Don. p. 495). Compare also to elwOo'^ avr^, L. iv. 16, A. 
xvii. 2 (Plat. Zegg. 658 e, to ydo<; r]fjuv), and to evirdpeSpov tö> 
Kvpüp, 1 C. vii. 35.^ A different case from this is L. vii. 12, 
f /o9 fMovoy€vr}<; ry /iirjTpL, a son who for the mother was the only 

^ In tlio (), T. also this construction is unknown. One of tlie parallels cited 
by Jirctschncider is Bus. 41, xariKptvccv uirnv ä,To6a.vuv ; in the other, ver. 48, 

the Verb is USCmI al^solutely, xanKpUocrt Cvya-ripa. ^\tTpa.Yi\. 

^ See Wyttenb. I'hit. Mor. I. 154 (Lips.) ; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. 101, Rep. 
I. 372 ; Ast, Plat. PoiU. 451 ; Bornein. Xen. Cyr. 1374 ; Fritz. Mark p. 63. 
3 [Also Jo. xii. 13, 2 C. xi. 28 (probably).] 


son (thus not strictly for the genitive: compare Tob. iii. 15, 
fiovoy€v7)<; TO) irarpi- Jiid. xi. 34) : this must not be confounded 
with the dative of relationship (compare L. v. 10,Piom. iv. 12). 
On Horn. iv. 12 see § 63. 11. 1. 

In Mt. XXvii. 7 also, rjyopaa-av rov dypov . . . . ct? Ta<^r]V rots 
^€voL<;,fo7' burial for stranciers, the dative belongs to the substantive : 
comp. Strabo 17. 807, -n-po? eVtSet^tv rot? ^cVois.- But in 1 C. vii. 28 
the dative may be joined with the verb of the sentence. See how- 
ever Bernhardy p. 88. 

4. Without direct dependence on the notion of a verb or 
noun, the dative may indicate the reference which an action 
has to some one ; as in 2 C. ii. 13, ovk ea^V^^ aveaiv tw iri/ev- 
fiaTL fxov for my spirit (1 C. vii. 28), or in L. xviii. 31, iravra 
TCL ye^pafifieva . . . reo via> tou av6p(i)7rov wJiat teas written for 
Him (that it should be fulfilled in Him),^ Mt. xiii. 14, Jude 14 : 
compare also Mt. xiii. 52, Ph. i. 27, 1 Tim. i. 9, Eev. xxi. 2. 

Especially deserving of notice are 

(a) The dative of opinion or judgment (compare above, 
no. 2), as in Plat. FJia^d. 101 d, et aoc aXX^JXot? ^vficpcovel i) 
Ecacjicovel ; Soph. CEd. Col. 1446. So in the phrases daTem 
Tch 6e(a A. vii. 20, and hvvara Ta> Oeo) 2 C. x. 4;^ see also 
I'C. ix. 2. Compare Krug. p. 71 sq.' (Dom p. 495, Jelf 600). 

(b) The dative of interest, — 2 C. v. 13, elVe i^eari^fiev, 6ew' 
etre G(x)(f>povovfiev, v/jlIp (Ptom. xiv. 6, 1 C. xiv. 22), — or more 
definitely, the dativus conimodi and incommodi : Jo. iii. 26, w ctl/ 
fi€fiapTvpr)Ka<;, for whom, in favour of whom (L. iv. 22, Eom. 
X. 2, 2 C. ii. 1, comp. Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 21) ; on the other hand, 
Mt. xxiii. 31, fiaprupeire iavroU, ore vlot iare k.t.X., against 
yourselves (compare Ja. v. 3). Compare further H. vi. 6, Jude 1, 
Eom. xiii. 2 : ^ on Eev. viii. 3 see Ewald. In E. v. 19, however, 

1 Buttm. Philoct. p. 102 sq., Boisson. Mc. p. 271, Ast, Plat. PoUt. 451, 519, 
and Legg. p. 9. [Comp. Eiddell, Plat. Apol. p. 126 sq.] 

2 See Schoem. Isctus p. 264, Kriig. p. 80. 

3 [Jelf (588. 2) refers this to the construction of verbs which denote that 
" something is allotted to any one, awaits any one, etc." (Green p. 100): A. Butt- 
manu (p. 178) joins the dative with both verbs: "if the word belonged to 
ytypaf^. only, we should have had Iti tu vlu, as in Jo. xii. 16." Bleek, Meyer, 
and others agree with Winer. ] 

* We should have a similar example in Ja. ii, f>, if (with Lachmann and 
Tischendorf) we read rovi -rTu^^ev; röU xoa-f^M. 

5 Compare Wyttenb. Phced. I. c, Erfurdt, Soph. (Ed. R. 615. 
«[Jelf 598, 601, Don. p. 494.] 


Xa\ovvT6<; eavTol<; (aWyXoi^;) y^aXjiol'^ k.tX., we have a simple 
dative of direction, spcakinrj to one another etc. 

5. From these examples it is obvious that the dative is akin 
to the prepositions eU (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 360 ^) and 
7r/309 (compare Ast, Plat. Lcgg. p. 558), just as the genitive to 
the prepositions etc and airo. Hence in many phrases et? or tt/do? 
with an accusative is used instead of the dative. Thus we find 
not only the familiar example Xeyecv tlvI and tt^o? TLva (the 
former is usually, almost constantly, preferred by Matthew and 
Mark ^), — compare Kpd^ecv tlvi, Eev. vii. 2, xiv. 15, (J)cov€lv tivI, 
Kev. xiv. 18, — but also ev^ecrOai 6ew A. xxvi. 29 (Xen, Cyr. 5. 
2. 12, Demosth. Conon 729 c, Vhxt. Coriol 9, Xen. Eph. 4. 3), 
and ev^ecrOaiTTpo^ 6e6v 2 C. xiii. 7 (Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2), compare 
Ph. iv. 6 ; ßoäv tlvl L. xviii. 7, and ßoäv irpo^ riva Hos. vii. 14; 
'yjrevSecrOal tlvi^ A. v. 4, Ps. xvii. 45, Ixxvii. 36, Jer. v. 12 (not 
in Greek authors), and "^evh. irpo^; nva (to lie towards, belie, 
some one) Xen. A71. 1. 3. 5 ; KaraWaTTeiv tlvl and Trpd? TLva, 
Xen. Vectig. 6. 8, Joseph. Antt. 14. 11. 3 ;^ evBoKelv eh nva 
2 P. i. 17, and euS. tlvl in Greek authors^ (Pol. 4. 22. 7, 
1 Mace. i. 43) ; /jud^eaOal tlvl Xen. An. 4. 5. 12, Plat. Bep. 3. 
407 a, and tt/oo? TLva Jo. vi. 52, Iliad 17. 98, Plat. Lach. 191 d, 
Luc. Conv. 42, and often (also in the LXX) ;^ 6/jLl\€lv tlvl and 
7r/309 Ttz^a, L. xxiv. 14, Xen. 3fem. 4. 3. 2. To the K T. writers 
the prepositional construction was also naturally suggested by 
the more expressive and vivid phraseology of their mother 
tongue ; and hence we sometimes find eh where Greek writers 
would have been content with the simple dativus commodi or 

^ In modern Greek th« accusative with e/j very commonly serves as a peri- 
phrasis for the dative, even in its simplest relations ; as xiyu lU rh (pikov /u,ov, 
dico amico meo (towards my friend) : see Von Lüdemann, Lehrb. p. 90. 
[Sophocles, Gr. p. 151, Mullach, Vul(/. p. 332. The dative has in great measure 
disappeared from modern Greek: see Mullach pp. 151, 327 sq., Clyde, p. 30 sq.] 

'"^ See Schulz, Parah. v. Verwalt. p. 38. [I have substituted "former" for 
"latter," which is a manifest mistake. The use of -rpo? with the accus, after 
xiyiiv and other verbs of speaking is very common in St. Luke and St. John : 
see Gersdorf ])p. 180, 186, Davidson, Introd. p. 194.] 

•''[On i/'ttJSiö-^a/ T<va (" actual decei)tion by falsehood ") and 4'- "^'vi ("address 
directed to a person in terms of falsehood") see Green, Gr. p. 100.] 

* Col. i. 20, u.Toxura.AX. I'tf, would l>e an analogous example, if this were not 
a pregnant construction, used designedly : s(!e Meyer m loc. 

•' [And in 2 Thess. ii. 12, according to the best MSS.] 

^ Thus besides Tapußoixkuv rl nvt (ll(!r. 4. 198) we also find -rap. n -rpos n 
(Joseph. Aj>. 2. 15). Different still is Mk. iv. 30, Iv -rol/tßoX^ -rapx- 
ßa.XufjLiv rviv ßatriXiiocv rou 6\ov (scc Fritz.), but tlio readings vary. ['Ev t<»< 
avTYiv Trapußok^ 6ufji.i)) is adopted by Fritz, and by recent editors.] 


incommodi : A. xxiv. 1 7, iX€r]/jLoavva<; iroii^acov et? to Wvo'^ ßov 
L. vii. 30, Ti]v ßovki]v rod 6eov yderrjo-av et? eavTOv<;, to their 
own detriment (as indeed et? also signifies contra ^). On the 
other hand, KTjpvTreLv or evajyeXi^. et? (Mk. xiii. 10, 1 P. i. 25, 
L. xxiv. 47, — Pans. 8. 5. 8) must be reudavcd 2^roclai7n or preach 
amonrjst them, since a plural noun always follows : in Mt. xx. 1, 
fjicaßovaOat et? tov afjurekoiva is not hire for but hire into the 
vineyard ; and there is the same pregnancy of expression in Mk. 
viii. 19, T. apTou? eKkacra et? tov<; irevTaKL^y^iklov^;, have broken 
(and divided) amongst etc. Similarly in ]\It. v. 22, evoxo^ et? Tr]v 
yeevvav, liable (to come, to be cast) into the Gehenna : contrast 
rfj Kptaet, tm avve^piw? In Eom. viii. 18 also rrfv fieXkovaav 
ho^av a7roKa\v(f)6rivai et? ?7/xa? is an abbreviated expression (see 
Pritz. in loc?), like the Hebrew '^^ n^i3, 1 S. iii. 7. Lastly, we 
cannot say that a preposition is used instead of a dative in the 
phrase ft)</)eXtyLto? Trpo? tl 1 Tim. iv. 8, 2 Tim. iii. 16 (ccxpiXi/jio^ 
et? Xen. (Fc. 5. 11, compare '^^pyjatfio^ et? Wis. xiii. 11), or in 
ev6eTo^ eUrc L. xiv. 35 (Dion. H. Be Thuc. 55. 3, ei^^ero? tt/do? 
Pol. 26. 5. 6,Diod. S. 5. 37) ; the expressions useful, suitable to 
ovfor a thing, are perfectly correct, as the dative would be more 
fitly used in reference to the jperson : compare however L. 
ix. 62 V. 1} 

The combination Trwrrcuctv cU or ctti nva (A. ix. 42, xxii. 19) 
obviously means in Christian phraseology more than -mcmveiv tlvl 
(credere, confidere alicui), and must be taken as a pregnant ex- 
pression, — believing, to give oneself up to some one, uith faith to 
declare adherence to some one, fide se ad aliquem applicare.^ Also 

' In L. viii. 43 Rec. has il? iccrpohs TposavaXeuffuirai oXov Tcv ßiov, but the best 
MSS. have locrpoT;, and this reading is to be preferred, as si; lUTpoh; is an evident 
correction: this verb, indeed, is commonly construed with il; in Greek writers 
(Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 9, Ml 14. 32). 

'■^ [A. Buttmann (p. 170) maintains that it is most natural to regard t'ls -j-r'v 
here as a periphrasis for the dative, the change from T>f xpUit, t^ avvt^piM, to 
this construction being occasioned by the transition from the abstract and quasi- 
abstract words {fcpiirtg, (Tvvilpiov) to the more material yiiwa.] 

^ [Fritzsche explains a'roKx?.Li'T'ri7ai u; lf/.'i thus : manifestatur res ad me (ita, 
ut ad me perferatur).] 

* [Here iv6. ryi ßa(rt?.uct is generally received. For utpiXi/xcs with dat. pers. 
see Tit. iii. 8. Compare Clyde, Synt. p. 163.] 

•■^ TiiffTiviiv Iv Xpio-TM would be explained in the same way, but the existence 
of this formula is not fully proved by G. iii. 26, E. i. 13 ; in Mk. i. 15, however, 
we find TiiTT. Iv T'M ivayyiXiO), whicli is not essentially different. — Such phrases 
as ri 'TTp'oi ma, Titrris do not prove the construction TiffTivnv -rpos or us nva to be 
pure Greek (Schwarz, Comment, p. 1102). [We should probably read iv avr^ 
in Jo. iii. 15, but (with Meyer) connect the words with £;^>), not 'TrKmim. The 


TrapaStSoVat ets is not simply equivalent to TrapaStSoVat tlvl, but has 
rather the meaning give into the power of (Mt. x. 17) ; hence it is 
used with Odvaro^ Mt. x. 21, 2 C. iv. 11, with OXIiJ/l^ Mt. xxiv. 9, 
with aKaOapa-Lu Rom. i. 24, etc. : compare Xen. Hell. 1. 7. 3. The 
combmation m jh. iv. 19, iavrovs TrapeSwKav rfj acreAveta ets ipyaacav 
dKa6apaLa<s 7rdar]<; k.t.A., needs no explanation. 

Rem. The preposition /xera also is akin to the dative. Thus for 
TToXcfxuv Tivi we find in the N. T. ttoXc/jlc'lv fxerd Tti/09, Rev. xii. 7, xiii. 
4 ; also Kpivea-Oai fxerd rtvog, 1 C. vi. 6 (7). With a different refer- 
ence, the dative is replaced 

{a) By ivojTTLov Ttvo? : A. vi. 5, yjpecr^v Ivtlnnov Travros tov ttAt^^ovs 
(Gen. xxxiv. 18, xli. 37,i 2 S. iii. 36, al.) ; compare 1 Jo. iii. 22, 
Trpo<;Kvv€iv ivu>7nov tov Oeov (L. iv. 7, Rev. xv. 4). This belongs to 
the Hebraic colouring of the language, as indeed the preposition 
ivuiTTLov itself (^Jöi?) may almost be said to do. 

(h) After TreVotöa— by iv, Ph. iii. 3 ; by eVt with the dative, Mk. 
X. 24, 2 C. i. 9 ; or by eVt with the accusative, Mt. xxvii. 43, 1 Mace. 
X. 77 (Jlex.). [See below, p. 292.] 

(c) After dKoXx)v06iv by ottio-w, Mt. x. 38 ; see § 33. 

That the dative may stand for the local tt^oo? or et? with an 
accusative, has been denied by Bornemann,^ and after him by 
Meyer (on A. ii. 33). It is true that the examples which Fritz- 
sche {Conject. I. 42) has quoted from Greek poets do not prove 
the point (for prose), and also that the N. T. passages may be 
otherwise explained. In A. ii. 3 3 and v. 3 1 (v-^Jrovv) rfj Be^ca 
may mean hi/ {His) right hand ; and in Rev. ii. 1 6 aoi is simply 
a dativus incommodi. Even A. xxi. 1 6 might be rendered (as 
by Beza and Glass) adducentes secum, apicd quein hospitaremur 
Mnasonem, — the word which should have been in the accus, 
case, as the object of ayovre^; (viz. Mvdacova k.t.\.), being 
brought into the construction of the relative sentence (Mvdacovc) : 
but this explanation has but little probability.^ A better course 

constructions of this verb in the N. T. are fully examined by A. Buttmann 
(p. 173), and more succinctly by Bp. Ellicott (on 1 Tim. i. IG).] 

^ [In Genesis U. cc. we have Ivxvtiov, not ivuTtov.] 

2 In liosenm. liepertor. II. 253, and in the Neu. krit. Journ. der theol. Literat. 
VI. 146 sq. : compare also ad Anah. p. 23. 

^ Not exactly because the predicate a.px,"-'V /^»^vt-/: is annexed (Bengels iV. 
Archiv III. nf)), for this description of Mnason is added in order to show that 
Paul miglit fully trust himscdf to liim ; but rather because it is not very likely 
that tliose wlio accomjtanied Paul from Ca'sarea would have brought with them 
a host for him, since there were in Jerusalem itself so iriany trustworthy Chris- 
tians. Hence we should have to assume, either that this Mnason was in Caesarea 
by mere accident, or that he had a residence in both itlaces at the same time. 
If we were to drop the ftccum, which certainly is not necessarily implied in 
ayovTis, it would simplify the matter (after their arrival in Jerusalem they 
brought Mnason forward), but then the words would not be suitably arranged. 


would be to adopt Bonieinann's more recent suggestion {Taic. 
}). 177 sq.) and resolve the attraction thus : ayovre^; (rjfjLa^) irapa 
Mvdcrcovd rtva . . . Trap* c5 ^eviaOco/Jbeu ^ (for ayetv irapd nva 
compare Her. 1. 86, 3. 15). Even this however is not the sim- 
plest explanation. The construction ayecv tlvl, lead to some one 
(but see the note below), may indeed be uncommon in Attic 
prose, but later prose wTiters use expressions which are entirely 
similar, as cpoLräu tlvl Philostr. So2')h. 2, 1. 14,^ t^kclv tlvl Plut. 
^??i. 16. 1, eh^epeLv TLvd tlvl Malal. 10. p. 231 : with A. xxi. 
16, in particular, compare Xen. Eph. 3. 6. p. 63, iroTepov r]y6pLT]v 
^AßpoKOfirj' Epiph. Vit. p. 340 d, rjjayev avTov 'Adavaaup tc3 
irdiTiTa? See also Bernh. p. 95, Held, Plut. J^m. P. p. 200. 
Hence we may without hesitation render vTJrovv Ttj Se^La, exalt 
to the right hand ; compare ver. 34, Kddov i/c Se^Lcov /jlov' see 
also Luc. Asin. 39. 

L. ii. 41, €7rop€vovTO . . . el<s IcpovcraXrjfx ry ioprfj, must not he 
rendered (as by Luther) to the feast, but either on account of the feast 
(see below 6. c), or as a loose expression, at the feasf^ With more 
reason might Mk. xiv. 53 a-vvipxovTat avT<2 {convenerant eum), and 
Jo. xi. 33 Tovs (TweXOovras avrrj 'IovSaLov<s, be brought in here (Fritz. 
Mark p. 648). In my opinion, however, the dative in both passages 
is really governed by a-vv ; the latter simply meaning ivho had come 
with her, the former, they came with Him, namely, with Jesus (ver. 
54); see Baumg.-Crusius. (Jelf592.) 

The use of the dative with verbs of coming in a non-local and 
non-material sense (as in A. xxi. 31, vLveßrj cf)dorL<s tü> xi-^idp^ai), is 
also a different construction from that noticed above. ^ To' this 
unquestioned parallels occur frequently in Greek writers : e. g. 
Plut. Brut. 27, jxeWovTi avrco Siaßatveiv , . . yKcv dyyeAta ttcdi rns 
/u,€Ta/5oX^s" Fomp. 13, rw SvAAo, TrpwTT] fxev -^XOev dyyeXta ; compare 
also dvdyeLv tl tlvl, to hriiiq something before some one (notify to) 
Malal. 3. p. 63, 10. p. 254 (Jelf 592). 

6. The dative is used with still greater latitude, in reference 

1 [So Meyer, De "Wette, Alford, and others. The rarity of such (local) datives 
is not the only objection to Winer's view : the order of the words would surely 
have been different, ciyovrn Mv. nvi K., Tttf Z |=v. (A. Buttm, p. 284).] 

2 Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. IV. 339. 

' In none of these instances, however, has aynv t/v/ (comp. TpostHyuv nvi 
% 52. 4) a purely local or material meaning : it is used rather in the sense of 
introducing, bringing into connexion with, into the society of some one. 
Similarly (potrav tivi (to go to some one as teacher), different from <poiTxv ^po; 
viya, Epict. Ench. 33. 13. [" In Plut. jEm. I. c. the dative depends on the whole 
expression ^x.i /xnvvuv :" A. Buttm. p. 179.] 

* We also should say in German : sie machten jährlich zu Ostern eine Heise 
nach . . . um dem Gottesdienste beizuwohnen. 

5 Compare our ' * es kam ihm die Kunde, die Anzeige. " 


to things, to denote that in which or in refere7ice to which an 
action or a state exists. Hence it indicates 

(a) The sphere to which a general predicate is to be limited 
(compare Bernh. p. 84, Kriig. p. 86 ^) : 1 C. xiv. 20,/x^ iraihla 
*yivecr6e rat? (j^pecrcv, aWa tjj KaKca vrjirid^ere, children 
ill understanding, children as regards malice (Plat. Alcib. pr. 
122 c) ; Rom. iv. 20, eveSvvafjLcoOrj rfj nrlareL, he grew strong in 
faith ; Ph. ii. 8, o-'^^fjuart evpeOeU &>? äv6pco7ro<;' iii. 5,^ Mt. v. 8, 
xi. 29, A. vii. 51, xiv. 8,xvi. 5, xviii. 2, xx. 22, Rev. iv. 3, 1 C. 
vii. 34, H. V. 11, xi. 12, xii. 3, 1 P. üi. 18, v. 9 (Pol. 20. 4. 7), 
G.i. 22,Rom. xii. 10, 11, Col. ii. 5, E. iv. 18,23 (Matth. 400.7, 
Pritz. Eom. III. 68). A dative of this kind comes between two 
connected nouns in E. ii. 3, rjfiev reKva (pva-et 6pyrj<;, natural 
children- of -wrath. 

(h) The norm or rule in accordance with which something 
takes place : A. xv. 1, eav fjurj TrepLrefivriaOe reo eöei Mcovae(o<^ 
(but in xvii. 2 Kara to €lü)66<;, and more frequently Kara e^o?) ; 
compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 4, Sext. Emp. 2. 6, Strabo 15. 715, 
Tob. iii. 8 [3 ?], 2 Mace. vi. 1.^ 

(c) The occasion or cause (on account of) : Rom. xi. 20, rfi 
aiTidTia i^eKKdo-Orjcrav, on account of unbelief (comipare ver. 30, 
7]\er)6riTe rfj tovtcov dTTeLOeia), G. vi. 12, Col. i. 21.^ Also the 
motive (from, in consequence of) : 1 C. viii. 7, rfi avvet^rjaeL rod 
elScoXov cü? elBcoXoOvrov ecrOlovai- 2 C. i. 15, Rom. iv. 20. See 
Diog. L. 2. 57, Heliod. 1. 12. 33, Paus. 3. 7. 3, Joseph. Antt. 17. 
6. 1 ^ (Matth. 398 sq., Bernh. p. 102 sq., Kriig. p. 84). 

More singular is the use of the dative in Rev. viii. 4, avißr) 6 kuttvo^ 
Twv OvfxLafxaToiv rat? 7rpo?ev;)(ats rdv dyiW k.t.X.., and many con- 
jectures have been made respecting it. The simplest translation is, 
the smoke of the (angels')^ incense ascended to the prayers, i. e., the 
ascending smoke had reference to the prayers, was designed to ac- 
company them and render them more acceptable : on the idea see 

1 [" A local dative ethically used : " Ellic. on G. i. 22. See Don. p. 488, Jelf 
605. 4, Green p. 99.] 

^ [Ucadinf^ of course -Tripiro/M^. Liinemann adds Mt. v. 3.] 

^ [Jelf 603, Green p. ^9 : the dative with 'xofiüia6a.i (below, no. 9) should 
perliaps come in here.] 

^ [So Meyer, takiiif^ ^x^foüi passively, invisos Deo : if i^^poCs is active (Alford, 
Ellicott) tTi liavoU will 1)(; a dative of rcyerence. ] 

* Compare Ast, 'riat. Poiit. p. 392,Goeller, Tltuc. pp. 157, 184, al. (Don. p. 493). 

* [Or rather "an^^el's." — Compare Green p. 102 : "The dative may bo re- 
garded as dependent on an unexpressed, but imi)lied, idea of bestowal, since the 
incense is to be viewed as the accompaniment which gave to the prayers a 
passport into the divine presence. "J 


Ewald ill lor. Tliat tins is the meaning was felt hy those who sup- 
plied avv : the rendering inter 2}reccs sanctorum is altogether untenable. 
— In 2 C. vii. 11 t(5 irpayjxaTi would certainly be admissible, but for 
the lantruacre of the N. T. the construction would be harsh. There are 
good authorities in favour of prefixing iv ; and the omission of this 
word may have arisen either from the absorption of kv in the preceding 
word clvoLL or from the reader's connecting 7rpay/ with kv iravri 

7. In the various usages noticed in no. G we can discern 
more or less clearly the dative of direction, that is (according to 
the Greek conception), the true dative. The case is however 
extended farther still in its application to what is external, to 
what accompanies the action, and passes over entirely into the 
ablative, denoting 

{d) The mode and manner, as the casus modalis (Bernb. p. 1 
sq., Don. p. 487, Jelf 603); 1 Cxi. o,7rpo<;evxofJi6vr) aKaraKaXv- 
TTTö) T?7 KecpdXfj with uncovered head, x. 30, Col. ii. 11, Ph. i. 18, 
2 P. ii. 4 (Jude 6) ; also Eom. viii. 24, rfj iXirlBt eacaOrjixev (and 
E. v. 19 ^) : — or the (material) means, instrument, as the casus 
instrumentalis (Mad v. 3 9, but comp. Krug. p. 83 ^) ; 1 P. i. 18, 
ov <p0apTOL<;, apyvpL(p rj '^pvalw, iXvrpcodrjTe' G. ii. 13, w9Te 
. . . crvvaiTTJ'^Or) avrcov rrj viroKpiaeL (2 P. iii. 17, compare 
Zosim. 5. 6), E. i. 13, Col. ii. 7, Ph. iii. 3, 1 C. ix. 7, t/? arpa- 
reverat tS/ot? oyJrcovloL^ irore, hy means of his own expenditure ; 
H. vi. 17, ipLeo-lrevaev opKcp' iii. 1,^ Rom. xv. 18 : — further A. 
i. 5, eßdiTTLcrev vBarc (xi. 16), Jo. xxi. 8, toS ifkoiapiw rjXOov' 
Mk. vi. 32 * (though elsewhere we find iv ttXolo)' Mt. xiv. 13, 
A. xxviii. 11, Diod. S. 19. 54), A. xii. 2, Eom. i. 20, iii. 24, Tit. 
iii. 7, E. V. 19, al. H. xii. 18, 6po<; KeKavfiiuov irvpi, igni 
ardens, turning in fire, with fire (Ex. iii. 2, Dt. iv. 11, ix. 15, 
compare Lob. Paral. p. 523 sq.), may also be brought in here. 
In Eom. xii. 12 r^ iXTrlBc ')(alpovTe^ is through hope, in hope 
rejoicing: in regard to 2 C. ix. 14, herjaei, I now agree with 
Meyer.^ We frequently find iv or 3ta (especially of persons) 

' [This passage is again quoted below. On a peculiar use of the modal dative 
in the LXX and N. T. see § 54. 3.] 

2 [Krüger prefers the term dynamic dative, since **it does not properly de- 
note the mere instrument or tool, though it is often improperly used of this." 
On the dativ. instrum. see Don. p. 490, Jelf 607.] 

3 [This reference is wrong : perhaps i. 3.] 

* [The reading is not certain : Lachm., Westc. and Hort insert Iv.] 

* [In ed. 5 Winer had taken 5s5iVw as dependent on -Tnotaffivovffa. (ver. 12), and 
consequently as parallel with the prepositional clause dta, -r. il^x^. : so Alford. 
Meyer takes kx) alruv . . . WitoS. as a genitive absolute, liriau as a modal 
dative : Stanley takes a similar view.] 


in parallelism with the instrumental dative : see Eom. xv. 18, 

2 C. xi. 23, 26 sq. 

The ablative is also to be recognised in the construction fxeOv- 
o-KeaOat otVo), E. V. 18 (Pr. iv. 17), and irXr^pova-Oal tlvl, Rom. i. 
29,1 2 0. vii. 4, Eurip. Here. Fur. 372 ; compare irXrjpr]^ tivl Eurip. 
Bacch. 18 (though this word more frequently takes a genitive), and 
see Bernh. p. 168. In later Greek compare TrÄT^o-öeVres dyvota Malal. 
p. 54. (In E. iii. 19 els with the accusative does not stand for an 
ablative : this preposition rather expresses, he filled up to the fulness 

8. All these relations however are not unfrequently (in some 
cases, more frequently) expressed by means of prepositions, with 
or without a modification of the meaning. This remark applies 
to Greek prose generally, but is especially illustrated by IST. T. 
Greek. Thus we find 

For (ct), iv : 1 P. iv. 1, iv crapKl iraBoov ^ (in connexion with 
aapKi iraOcov), Tit. i. 13, compare ii. 2 ; BLa<pep6cv ev rivc 1 C. 
XV. 41, Soph. (Ed. Col. 1112, Dion. H. Up. p. 225 (Krug.). 

For (h), Kara : as almost always Kara to e6o^ elcoOo^;, L. iv. 
16, A xvii. 2. 

For (c), Sta with the accusative : see § 49. c. 

For (d),SLd 01 iv, — also //-era. Thus for ßaTrrl^ecrdaLvBaTo 
we commonly ^ find ßaiTTi^ecröaL Iv vBaTC {in water), Mt. iii. 11, 
Jo. i. 26, 31 (but also ev Trvev/jbarL) ; for ßia, always fiera ßLa<;, 
A. V. 26, xxiv. 7 ; for iria-TeL, sometimes hia iriaTe(b<^, etc. But 
in E. ii. 8, ttj '^dpcTL lare aeacoo-fievoL Bt>ä 77)9 Tr/o-rew?, and in 
Kom. iii. .24, the dative expresses the motive, and Boa iriarew^ 
the subjective means. In 2 P. iii. 5 also we find a twofold ex- 
pression of the means, Bid indicating what is external, the dative 
what is not material. For iravrl Tpoirw (Ph. i. 18) we find in 
2 Th. iii. 16 iv iravTi rpoTTw. On the other hand, in 2 P. ii. 3 
the dative denotes the means, (V the state (the disposition). 

When however the commentators on the N. T. explained cV as a 
simple nota dativi,^ even in cases where a dative proper (not an abla- 
tive) is required, they took an exaggerated view which cannot in the 
least be justified by appealing to the Hebrew idiom. Most of the 
examples quoted owe all their plausibility to the circumstance that 
elsewhere the dative of the person is commonly found in similar 

1 [See Green, Gr. p. 101.] 

2 ['Ev is oinittod ))y llic Ixjst e(Htor.s on strong MS. autliority.] 

•^ [The two expressions are ubout e([U<illy freijucnt : iv is inserted in the pas- 
sage quoted in the text and in Jo. i. 33, Mk. i. 8 Jiex., but omitted in L. iii. 
16, A. i. 5, xi. 1(5, Mk. i. 8 (Tisch, cd. 8, Westcott and Hort).] 

* Comp. Blomüeld, iEschyh Agam. 1425, and Eurip. Mtd. p. 628. 


combinations (compare 1 C. xiv. 11, iii. 1, i. 18); in reality, they ar« 
quite unsatisfactory. In A. iv. 12, SeSo/AcVoj/ cV ai/ö/jojTrots is most 
certainly equivalent to given (set forth) amongst men (compare 2 C. 
viii. 1^); G. i. 16, aTroKaXvxl/at tov vlov avTov iv i/xoc, is to reveal 
tn me {iv rw Tri/cu/xart fxov) ; 1 Jo. iv. 9, icfxivcfUiyOr] rj ayaTrr) tov 
Oeov iv yfiiv, the lov3 of God manifested itself on or in us, which 
undoubtedly is different from " manifested itself to us;" 1 C. xiv. 11, 
6 XaXCjv iv ifjiol ßapßapo^, in my estimation, nieo judicio;'^ 1 C. ii. 6, 
(TO(j)iav AaA.ov/xei/ iv rot«? rcActoi?, is we set forth wisdom amongst — or with, 
before {coram, Plat. Symp. 175 e, as often in the orators, see § 48. a) 
— the perfect, that is, when we have to do with the perfect, compare 
Judith vi. 2. 2 C. iv. 3, iv rots airoWvixivoi^ iü-Ti KeKoXv/xixcvov, is in 
the main rightly explained by Baumgarten, — is hidden in {amongst, 
with) those who are lost. On o/xoAoycii/ €v tlvl see § 32. 3. b. A. xiii. 
15 and Col. ii. 13 need no explanation; and E. ii. 5, v€Kpov<; rot? 
TrapaTTTw/xao-t, is not grammatically parallel to the latter passage. 
In E. i. 20, ivi]pyr](rev iv XpifTTü) is quite regular, {power) which He 
manifested on Christ (in raising Him from the dead). In Mt. xvii. 
12, eTTOtrycrav iv avrw ocra yOekrjcrav (in Mk. ix. 13, iTrotrjcrav avrw) 
means, they did, perpetrated, on him; compare Mk. xiv. 6, Jo. xiv. 
30, L. xxiii. 31, 1 C. ix. 15 (Gen. xl. 14, Judith vii. 24). Equally 
correct is 2 C. x. 12, fierpuv eavrov? iv eavrot?, measure themselves 
on themselves, though Greek writers use the simple dative (Aristot. 
Bhet. 2. 12, Herod. 1. 6. 2). 

9. Time, as the substratum connected with actions in general, 
is expressed in the dative, in answer to the question loJien. This 
temporal dative denotes 

a. A space of time: L. viiL 29, TroXXot? y^povoi^ cruvrjpTrd/cec 
avTov, within (during) a long time, A. viii. 11, xiii. 20, Eom. xvi. 
25, Jo. ii. 20 (not E. iii. 5^); compare Joseph. Antt. 1. 3. 5, to 
vSoyp r)fi6pai<; reaaapaKovra o\aL<; KaT6(f>6peT0' Soph. Track. 599, 
fjLaKpo) XP^^V ^schin. Ep. 1. p. 121 c, Diod. S. 19. 93. 

h. More frequently, a point of time at which something 
happens, — either with words which directly express the notion 
of time or of a division of time (accompanied by a numeral or 

* So in Diog. L, 1. 105, ti Iff^tv Iv a.vöpu'roi? ayx^ov ts xa.) (patvkov, where 
also the Latin translator has quidnam esset hominibus bonum, etc. Compare 
also Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 628, ^ovkivffova-iv Iv to7s ix,^po75 abruv' Arrian, Epiot. 
1. 18. 8. [The *'also" refers to the fact that in A. iv. 12 the Vulgate has 
"datum hominibus."] 

2 Comp. Jacobs, Athen, p. 183, Döderlein, CEdip. Col. p. 529, "Wex, Soph. 
Antig. v. 549. 

3 [Winer apparently agrees with Meyer (ed. 2, 3) in regarding Iripxis ysvietj; 
as an ordinary transmissive dative. De W., Ellicott, and Alford take ysvE« in 
its temporal sense, and the dative as a dative of time : so also A. Buttmann and 
Meyer in ed. 4.] 



by a genitive, Krug. p. 67), as L. xii. 20, ravTrj rfj vvktI' Mk. 
vi. 21, 'Hpco8r)<; rol^ yevea-iot^; avrov Belirvov iirolrjGe'^ Mt. xx. 
19, rfi Tplrrj rjfiepa ävaarrjaerat' xxvi. 17, L. xiii. 16, A. vii. 8, 
xii. 21, xxi. 2(3, xxii. 13, xxvii. 23 ; — or with the name of a 
festival (Wannowski p. 86), L. xiii. 14, rw aaßßdrü) iOepdirevcre 
(xiv. 1), Mt. xii. 1, T069 adßßaaL, al. Compare Plat. Conv. 
174 a, Madvig 45. As a rule, however, iv is added to the dative 
in the latter case, as it frequently is in the former (especially 
with icr')(aT7) rj/juepa or rj/iepa Trj<; KpLa6(o<;), even in Luke (iii. 1, 
i. 26), compare Krlig. p. 67 (Don. p. 487, Jelf 606). In Greek 
authors also the use of rfj eoprfj or rat? kopTal<i without iv is 
rare (Wannowski p. 88). 

The dative o^ place has not taken deep root in the N. T. Before 
names of towns cv is ahvays inserted, as kv "P^fxy, iv Tvpw, A. xvii. 6 
[?xvii. 16], xix. 1, Rom. i. 7, 2 Tim. i. 17, iv.'20, al. ''OSos occa- 
sionally dispenses with the preposition, as in Ja. ii. 25, erepa 6Sa 
iKßaXovo-a (where however a preposition was hardly needed), com- 
pare Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 16 ; 68(3 iropcvecrBai 2 P. ii. 15, A. xiv. 16 (in a 
figurative sense), comp. Lucian, Tim. 5, 68(5 ßaStleLv (Fritz. Bom. 
III. 140 sq.) ; o-tocx^lv rot? t;(vecrt Pom. iv. 12 (/^atVetj/ t;!(vecrt Plut. 
Sol. 30). To this usage should also be referred the figurative phrases 
TTopcveo-^at Tw <f>6ßo) A. ix. 31, xiv. 16, Pr. xxviii. 26, 2 S. xv. 11,^ 

1 Mace. vi. 23, Bar. i. 18, ii. 10, iv. 13, Tob. i. 2, iv. 5 (also iropev- 
ea-Oai iv 1 P. iv. 3, al.), and even TrepnraT^lv roh eOea-c A. xxi. 21, 2 C. 
xii. 18, G. V. 16, Pom. xiii. 13. In Greek prose generally the use 
of the dativus localis is very limited : see Madvig 45, Poppo on Thuc. 
1. 143. (Jelf 605.) 

10. Sometimes, though rarely, the dative (of a person) ac- 
companies a passive verb (usually in the perfect tense), instead 
of iWo, Trapd, etc., wdth the genitive: L. xxiii. 15, ovhev a^tov 
davdrov earl TreTrpay/jievüv avroj (Isocr. Paney. c. 18). Yet 
there is some difference between these constructions: the dative 
does not indicate hy whom something is done, but to whom that 
which is done belongs (Mad v. 38. g, Kriig. p. 84'"^). This con- 
struction is found with evplo-KeaOai especially, as 2 C. xii. 20, 

2 P. iii. 14,"* Pom. x. 20 (from the LXX) : compare also L. 

^ [Liincrnaiin adds Mt, xiv. 6. On this s(^e p. 276.] 

^ [This is surely not an example. Many of these examples may well be 
refeired to 6. h, above. For 2 Pet. ii. 15 above read Jude 11. J 

3 IJenseler, Isocr. Evan. P- 13 (Don. p. 492, Jelf Gil). 

* [In ed. 5 Winer regarded the dative in these two passages as a dative of 
opinion or judgment (no. 4. a) : so Meyer in 2 C, I, c, and Alford, lluthcr, A. 
iJuttmann, in 2 P. iii. 14. J 


xxiv. 35 (Ja. iii. 18), Ph. iv. 5 (A. xxiv. 14 [Eec.]), and 2 
P. ii. 19, where (5 rt«? i]TT7]TaL means, to whom any one is 
inferior, succumbs (like -qrracrOai tlvo<; in Greek writers). But 
in A. xvi. 9 wcpOr] opa/xa tu> TlavXra signifies became visible to 
him, as o(^6rjval tlvl often means to ajpiKar to some one. In 
Ja. iii. 7, t?; (pvaet ttj avopwirlvr) is rather through the nature 
of man, ingeniis hominimi. In general, the dative of the thing 
with passive verbs (as probably in Ptom. xii. 16, see Fritz, in 
loc}) is less strange, as it coincides with the dative of the means. 
In H. iv. 2, ToU aKovaao-Lv probably indicates the persons in 
whose case the /x^ crvyK€K. rfj irlo-rec existed. Lastly, in Mt. v. 
21 sqq. eppi^Or] tol<; äp')(aLOi<i signifies was said to the ancients : 
see Tholuck in loc? This dative (of the person) is similarly used 
in Greek prose, but is especially common after a participle : 
compare Dem, Olynth. 3. p. 12 c, Thcocrin. 507 c, Cor on. 324 a, 
Conon 731 b, Diog. L. 8. 6, Philostr. Her. 4. 2. 

Rem. 1. The dative in Col. ii. 14, e^oAeti/^a? ro Koff tj/xCjv 
X^tpoypacfiov rots Soyixacrt, is worthy of notice. The explanation 
given by some of the commentators, o rjv iv toI^; 8oy/xacrt, quod con- 
stabat placitis (Mos.) — in accordance with E. ii. 15, t6v v6/xov tCjv 
ivToXwv €v 86yixa(TL Karapyrjcra^, — is correct indeed as regards the 
sense, but ungrammatical : to express this Paul must have written 
)(eLp6ypa(fiOv to iv rot? Soyjxacn. To take E. ii. 15 first : Tu)V ivToXCjv 
iv Soy/xacTL must certainly be regarded as expressing a single notion, 
the commandments in (particular) decrees ; ^ compare § 20. 2. In Col. 
ii. 14 however, all things being considered, we cannot but join 
Soyfxaa-L closely with TO KaO' rjfx. x^^P-» ^h^ bond (in force) against us 
through the decrees ; and perhaps Paul chose this position for Soy/xao-c 
in order to give the word prominence. Meyer's explanation, that 
lohich was written with the commandments (the dative being used as 
in the phrase written with letters), is the more harsh as x€tpoypa</)oi/ 
has so completely established itself in usage as an independent word 
that it is hardly capable of governing (like yeypaixjxivov) such a dative 
as this. 

Hem. 2. Kühnöl's remark in his note on Mt. viii. 1, that datives 
absolute sometimes take the place of absolute genitives (e.g., KaTaßdvTt 

^ [Fritzsche takes ro7s Tccvitvoli as neuter, and renders per miseram rem.] 
2 [See Alford in loc. for a clear summary of the arguments on this side.] 
^ [This is more fully examined in ed. 5. "If, in accordance with gramma- 
tical rule, Iv loyfixffi be connected with KXTupymas, we must either understand 
^oyuxra to mean Christian doctrines (which would stand in the same relation 
to ivroXcci as Tta'rig to ipyx) ; or we must translate (with Harless), He has 
abolished the law of the commandments in decrees (abolished it on the side of 
decrees). N. T. usage however does not support tlie former interpretation of 
Voyuara. ; and on Harless's view I should expect t-oTj Voyfjcx(n, since a definite 
side of a definite law is spoken of." See EUicott and Lightfoot in loc.'\ 


avT<2 for KaTaßdvTos avTov, and iXOovTL avTio Mt. xxi. .23), expresses 
what was formerly the general belief of philologers as well as of 
N. T. commentators.! jj^ reality, however, all such datives (at 
any rate in the better writers, Wannowski p. 91 sqq.) are as easily 
explained from the nature of this case as the genitive absolute 
from the nature of the genitive : ^ see Bernh. p. 82, Stallb. Plat. 
Protag. 60, Kost p. 721 (Jelf 699). KühnöFs remark cannot 
with even the least show of reason be applied to the passages 
he has quoted, for in them Karaßapn and iXOovn are connected 
with the verb aKoXovOelv ; though it cannot be denied that Matthew 
might have written Kara^aj/ro? avrov rjKoXovOrjcrav avrw o^Xot ttoXXol, 
compare Mt. viii. 28, Mk. v. 2 v. l.^ The only peculiarity of this 
construction is, that avT(^ is uniformly repeated, — because the dative 
participle and the governing verb aTe separated by several other 
words. In the examples cited by Kypke (I. 47) from Pausanias and 
Josephus, either there is simply a pronoun joined to the participle, 
or the pronoun comes in only in immediate connexion with the verb 
(Joseph. Antt. 8. 13. 4); hence they prove nothing for the main 
point. Nor is there a real dative absolute in A. xxii. 6 or 17 : in 
the latter passage, just as in ver. 6, jxoi ^^7^oo■Tpe^/^avTt belongs to 
cyeVero, but a different construction (with the genitive absolute) 
then commences : accidit mihi reverso, cum precabar in templo, etc. 
Compare Paus. 3. 10, 7, and 25. 3. 

Eem. 3. We find a double dative, one of the person, the other 
(a dative of explanation, of more exact definition) of the thing, in 
2 C. xii. 7, l^oOr] fxoL oTKoXoij/ rfj aapKt, there was given me a stake 
for the {in the) flesh * (Ex. iv. 9, Gen. xlvii. 24) : compare the Ho- 
meric Uhov ol rjvia ^cpo-tV.^ It is otherwise with the double datives 
in E. iii. 5, Eom. vii. 25, H. iv. 2, Rev. iv. 3 : these need no remark. 

Rem. 4. We meet with a very singular dative in 2 C. vi. 14, 
fjirj ytveaOe €T€po^vyowT€<; aTTtorrots : here some would even supply 
o-w, whilst others seek for the same meaning in the dative itself. 
The dative may indeed be sometimes resolved by with (Reitz, Lucian 

1 Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 391, Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 304, Heupel, Marl. 
p. 79. 

^ [With Mt. xiv. 6, yivifflon yivof/,ivoti, compare the exami)les quoted by 
Kühner II. 371 (ed. 2) : see also Jelf 699, A. Buttm. p. 3] 7.] 

^ [There is a great diflerence of opinion as to the reading in tlie four passages 
quoted in this paiagraph. The MSS. are divided, and internal arguments may 
be adduced on botli sides, since both constructions are grammatically inexact (on 
the redundancy of the pronoun see § 22. 4, and on the combination of genitive 
and dative § 30. Rem.), and yet tlie transcribers were certainly lamiliar witli 
both. Tischendorf receives tlie dative in Mt. viii. 1, but the genitive in Mt. 
viii. 28, xxi. 23, Mk. v. 2. Westcott and Ilort have the genitive in each case.] 

* [So Alford, Hiferring to G. iv. 14 ; Meyer jjrefers to connect r^ o-apKi closely 
with ffx'oXo-^, a Lliorn for the ßesh. As regards the meaninf) of <rKoXo-^, see 
Meyer and Alford in loc. in defence of "thorn," and on the other side Stanley 
p. 539 sq. (ed. 3).] 

^ Reisig, Soph. GiJd. Col. 2Gf), Elmsley, Eur. Bacch. pp. 49, 80 (ed. Lips.), 
Bornein., Xen. Conv. j). 214, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 811, Ast, Plat. Leyg. p. 278. 


VI. 599. Bip., Mattli. 405, compare Polyicn. 8. 28), but tliis is quite 
a diÜerent case. The ajtostle's language seems abbreviated, and the 
dative appears to be adapted rather to the thoughts than to the 
words. His meaning obviously is : /xr; yiV. crf/ao^iryowTcs /cat ovtoj<; 
oixo^vyovvT€<; {(rv^vyovuTe<;) aTTitrroi^, do not let youTselves be yoked ill a 
strange yoke, i.e., in the same yoke with unbelievers. 

Section XXXIL 
the accusative. 

1. The accusative appears in connexion with transitive verbs, 
active, middle, and deponent, as the proper object-case : Koirreiv 
Tr)v 6vpav, KOTTTeaOac T7]u K6(j)aXr}v, (^vXacraetv tov kyjitov, 
(pvXdcraeaOai ra^; evTo\d<;. It must however be borne in 
mind — not only 

a. That in later, and particularly in Biblical Greek, several 
neuter verbs have acquired a transitive (causative) meaning, as 
jxaOrjrevecv Tivd (§ 38.. 1) : — but also 

I. That, in general, certain classes of verbal notions which 
we consider either entirely or partially intransitive appeared 
to the Greeks as transitive. Under this head come 

(a) The verbs which denote emotiom (Jelf 549 sq.) : iXeelv, 
Mt. ix. 27, Mk. V. 19, Ph. ii 27, al. (Plat. Symp. 173 c, ^1. 13. 
31) ; oUrelpeLv, Pom. ix. 15, from the LXX (Soph. EL 1403, 
Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 32, Lucian, Abel. 6, Tim. 99) ; eiraicrxyveaöaL 
TLva and rt, Mk. viii. 38^ H. xi. 16, Rom. i. 16 (Plat. Soioli. 
247 c, — compare ola'^yveaQaL Soph. (Ed. R. 1079, Eurip. Ion 
1074), once liraiax- eV/, Rom. vi. 21 (compare Isocr. Permut. 
778). On the other hand, o-TrXayx^^^^^^^^ takes eVt as a rule, 
only once governing the genitive, Mt. xviii. 27 (see § 33). 
'EvTpeTTeadai nva, to he afraid of any one (Mt. xxi. 37, L. 
xviii. 2, H. xii. 9), is a later construction, not found before 
Plutarch : in earlier writers we find ivrpeTreaOal tlvl} 

(/3) The verbs of treating tvell or ill (harming, benefiting), 
speaking well or ill of any one (Jelf 583): dSiKelv, ^Xdirreiv, 
a)(f)e\6iv, XvfjLaiveaOai, vßpi^etv rtvd (Xen. Jlell. 2. 4. 17, Lucian, 
Fisc. 6) ; iiTTjped^etv rtvd (with dative of the person, Xen. Mevi. 

^ [A mere misprint for t/»o? (ed. 5), see Jelf 510.] 


1. 2. 31) ; XoiZopeiv rcvd, Jo. ix. 28 (Matth. 384. Eem. 2, Jelf 
566. 2) ; ßXaa(f)ri/jLeLp tlvcl, Mt. xxvii. 39, A. xix. 37, Eev. xiii. 
6, al., but also ßXaac^rjfielv eh riva L. xii. 10 (compare Demosth. 
Cor. Nav. p. 715 c, Diod. S. 2. 18, and in the LXX, Hist 
Drac. 9, — so in Greek writers oveiSl^etv el? rtva, vßpi^eiv et? 
TLva Lucian, Twi. 31), and ßXaac^rjixelv ev tlvl 2 P. ii. 12 (in 
Greek writers also ß\. ireplrivo^, Isocr. Permiit. 736); oveihl^eiv 
TLvd, Mt. V. 11 (and in the LXX, compare Eom. xv. 3),^ for 
which earlier writers used oveihl^eiv rivl or eh rtva ; ^ KaKm 
epelv Tcvd, A. xxiii. 5 (Plat. Mcthjd. 284 e, Diod. S. Vat p. 66) ; 
also KarapaaOal rtva, Mt. v. 44,^ Ja. iii. 9 (Wisd. xii. 11, 
Ecclus. iv. 5, aL, — Karapäo-Oau tlvl Xen. An. 7. 7. 48). All 
tliese constructions ultimately rest on the simple Xeyecv or elirelv 
TLvd, Jo. i. 15, viii. 27, Ph. iii. 18, al., Jud. vii. 4; compare 
Herm. Soph. CEcl C. 1404, Matth. 416. We find however 
KaXax; iroielv with the dative of the person, L. vi. 27,^ and 
similarly ev iroielv, Mk. xiv. 7 : here the accusative is always 
preferred in Greek prose ;^ compare however Odyss. 14. 289, o? 
crj iToXKa Kdic dvOpcoTTOiaiv icopyei. JJoielv rcvd rt, to do some- 
thing to some one, also occurs in the N. T., Mt. xxvii. 22, Mk. 
XV. 12:^ compare Aristoph. Nuh. 258 sq. 

(7) '0/uLvvetv TLvd, Ja. v. 12 (ovpavov), to swear hj ; compare 
Hos. iv. 15, Xen. djr. 5. 4. 31, Herod. 2. 10. 3 (Jelf 566. 2). 

The IST. T. writers however do not uniformly adopt these con- 
cise constructions. As in ordinary Greek, several verbs vary 
between a transitive and a neuter meaning : KXaletp rivd Mt. ii. 
1 8 (from the LXX ^), but eVt rtva L. xix. 41, xxiii. 28 ; irevOelv 
Tivd 2 C. xii. 21, but eV/ rivt Eev. xviii. 11 ;^ KoirreaOai riva 
L. viii. 52 (Eur. Troad. 628, 1 Mace. ii. 70), and eV/ rcva Eev. 

1 Schfcf. Plutarch V. 347. 

^ [And also öi/s/^/^j/v Ttvoi, see examples in Liddell and Scotts, v. (but II. 1. 
211 is very doubtful).] 

'■* [The clause is omitted in the best MSS. : this verb has an accusative in Mk. 
xi. 21, and ])io})a]>ly in J., vi. 28, where Jiec. has the dative. Wisd. xii. 11 is 
not an examjjle in point.] 

A. xvi. 28, fAt]liv TTpu-'ini cikvtm kolkov, is of a different kind : we often meet 
witli this and similar exairiples in Greek writers, as Lys. Accus. A(ior. 41, Xen. 
dyr. 6. 4. 11, r>. r>. 14, 8. 7. 24. 

^' See Bihiioth. JJrcm. Nova I. 277. 

' [If we omit «v kiytrt : tin; received text leaves the construction doubtful.] 

^ [The citation is from Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii.) 15, but this clause is altosrether 
different in tlie J.XX text.] 

'' [The most probable reading is it' «ütjjv.] 


i. 7, xviii. 9 ; evhoKelv nvd TI. x. 6,8, from the LXX ^ (Lev. 
xxvi. 34, Ps. 1. 18), but usually evh, ev tlvl. ^Ojivveiv is coin- 
inoiily treated cas a neuter verb, and construed with Kara Tivoli 
H. vi. 13, 16 (Amos viii. 14, Zeph. i. 5, Is. xlv. 23 ^), or with 
eV TLVL Mt. V. 34 sqq.,^ Rev. x. 6 (Jer. v. 2, 7, Ps. Ixii. 12). On 
the other hand, instead of evyapLCTTelv (tlvI) iiri tlvl, we find 
(with the passive verb) the construction ev^ap. (tlvl) tl in 2 C. 
i. 11 ; and in 2 C. ix. 2, xi. 30, Kav^aaOaL takes an accusative 
of the thinsj. 

With Jude 15, tCjv Ipywv dcrc^eta? avTwv u)V (a) rjcriß-qcrav, 
compare Zeph. iii. 1 1 , tCjv iTnrrßivixaTUiV (Tov wv y]crißy](Ta^ et? c/xc : 
acreßclv tl, Plat. Legg, 12. 941 a, is of a different kind (Matth. 
413. 11). 

'lepoupyctv, epya^ccröai, and i/xTropevecrOaL are real transitives ; and 
as the phrase Upovpyetv Ova-iav was in use (Palaeph. 5. 3, compare 
Acta AjJOcr. 113), Paul could figuratively say Up. to evayyiXtov (Rom. 
XV. 16). The accusative after ifXTropevea-OaL does not always denote 
the merchandise; we find also ifxirop. rtj/a, Ez. xxvii. 21, 2 P. ii. 3, 
— in the latter passage with the meaning trade in, (wish to) 7naJce a 
gain of a man. With Rev. xviii. 1 7, oo-ot tyjv BaXacra-av cpya^ovrat, 
comp. Appian, Pun. 2, Boisson. Philostr. p. 452 : y^v ipyat, Paus. 
6. 10. 1, is similar. 

EvayyeXilea-Oai (of Christian preaching) takes an accusative of the 
person in the N. T., as a transitive verb, L. iii. 18, A. viii. 25, xiv. 
21 ; compare evayy. tlvo. tl A. xiii. 32. Yet emyy. TLVL is also in 
use, see L. iv. 18, Rom. i. 15, G. iv. 13, 1 P. iv. 6. 

An accusative is also found with ßaa-KaLveLv fascinare in G. iii. 1. 
With the meaning invidere this verb takes the dative (Philostr. Epj?. 
13), see Lob. p. 463 : the ancient grammarians themselves, however, 
are not agreed on the distinction between these two constructions, 
see Wetstein IL 221 sq. 

TLapaLvetv, which in Greek writers usually takes the dative of 
the person (^sch. Dial. 2. 13, Pol. 5. 4. 7), is followed by an 
accusative in A. xxvii. 22. Vice versa, we find StSao-Kctv tlvl in Rev. 
ii. 14 v. /., as in some later writers.* 

^vXda-a-ea-OaL {to beivare of) governs an accusative in A. xxi. 25, 
2 Tim. iv. 15 (as frequently in Greek authors, Xen. Mera. 2. 2. 14, 
Lucian, Asin. 4, Diod. S. 20, 26), as if to observe some one for oneself. 
In L. xii. 15 it is joined with 0.776-, this construction also is not 
unknown in classical Greek (Xen. Cyr. 2. 3. 9). Similarly cfioßeta-OaL, 

^ [The LXX text (Ps, xxxix. 7) lias not tvhxiTv at all : H. x. 6, 8 are rather 
examples of tv'SoKtTv n, but we probably have iv'$. nva. in Mt. xii. 18.] 
2 Sch?ef. Long. p. 353. 
^ [In ver. 35, iuvvuv e/j.] 
4 See Schaef. Plutarch V. 22. 


to he afraid in reference to something, to fear something (for one- 
self), is usually found with an accusative, but sometimes with oltto 
(sibi ab al. timere), as Mt. x. 28, fxr] ^oßudO^ a-n-b twv dvro/crevovTtüv ■•■ 
TO crco/xa .... <jioßr]6rjT€. Se fxaXXov rov 8wa/x€vov k.t.X. The Greeks 
said cjioßeiaOai vtto tlvos or tlvl (yet compare cf)6ßo<; (xtto tlvo<s Xen. 
Cyr. 3. 3. 53, 6. 3. 27) : f^ioßuaOai ojtö is an imitation of the Hebrew 
D (or "»jqd) N"i\ Jer. i. 8. The same analogy is followed by ^AeVetv 
a-Ko (a pregnant expression) Mk. viii. 15, xii. 38, and by irposex^tv 
ttTTO Mt. xvi. 6.2 But in Ph. iii. 2 ßX^-rrere ttjv Kararofxrjv is look at, 
observe the concision, and here beivare of is only a derived meaning ; 
the use of ßXiiTuv tl in such a sense (beware of) would receive no 
confirmation from (pvXda-aeorOaL tl, since the middle voice is here 

^evyeiv governs the accusative, 1 C. vi. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 22, in a 
figurative sense (to flee i.e. to shun a vice) ; ^ but is once follow^ed 
by ttTTO, in 1 C. x. 14, ^euyere airb t^9 eiSwAoXarpetas. This latter 
construction is otherwise very common in the N. T. (as in the LXX), 
and (jiivyeiv ttTTO Ttvos means either to flee away from some one, in 
difi'erent senses (Jo. x. 5, Eev. ix. 6, Mk. xiv. 52, Ja. iv. 7), or — 
including the result of the fleeing — to escape from some one (Mt. 
xxiii. 33). In Greek writers c^evyetv dTro is only used in a strictly 
local sense, as Xen. Cyr. 7. 2. 4, Mem. 2. 6. 31, Plat. Phced. 62 d, 
Pol. 26. 5. 2. 

On -xprjcrßaL rt SCO § 31. 1. i.* 

The accusative of the place to which after verbs of motion 
was, after the full development of the prepositions, mostly con- 
fined to poetry: Matth. p. 747 [? § 409]. In the K T. the 
general character of the language would lead us to expect that 
a preposition would be always used in such cases. A. xxvii. 2, 
fieXXovTL liXelv rov^ Kara rrjv ^Aaiav tottov^ (where however 
some good MSS. prefix et?), is no exception : the words must be 
rendered, to sail hy the places along the coast of Asia, and in 
this signification the best authors use TrXelv as a pure verb 
transitive, with the accusative (sometimes the accus, of the 
coast-regions^). Compare Poppo on Thuc. 6. 36 (Jelf 559). 

2. A neuter verb which expresses a feeling or an action is 

' [On this form soe above, p. 100.] 

^ Compare also cclff^vviffoui ccto, 1 Jo. ii. 28.] 

^ [Ati(1 once in tlie .sense of escapinfj, H. xi. 34. (A. Biittm. p. 146.)] 

^ [" The LXX once use IffTipiiiv with the accusative, in the sense of the imper- 
.sonal lu {Vh. xxii. 1, olViv fi.i üffTtpria-it), and some of the oldest MSS. have the 
same construction in Mk. x. 21, 'iv in vcmpii:" A. Buttm. p. 169.] 

* Wahl's parallels (Xen. JJdl. 4. 8. 6, Pol. 3. 4. 10) only support the con- 
stniction -rXiTv rhv 6a.Xa.affa.t or to. Ti'kä.yn ; of this, however, 1 ]\lacc. xiii. 29 and 
Ecclus. xliii. 24 will serve as examjjles. 


frequently followed by an accusative of its cognate noun (nomert 

conjugatum), or of the noun which is cognate to a verb of similar 

meaning ; such nouns being in fact already included in the verb, 

since they merely express its notion in a substantival form. This 

combination, however, is only used when the notion of the verb 

is to be extended,^ — either by an (objective ^) genitive, as in 

1 P. iii. 14, Tov (j)6ßov avTcov fir) (j)oß7]6fJTe (Is. viii. 12), Col. 

ii. 19, av^6i TJ]v av^TjaLv tov 6eov (Plat. Zcgr/. 10. 910 d, 

aael:ielv avSpwv äaeßfjfia' 1 Macc. ii. 58, ^jjXcocrai i^ifkov vo/jlov 

Judith ix. 4) ; — or by means of an adjective, Mt. ii. 10, e')(apr]aav 

X'^P^v fieyaXrjv a(f)68pa' Jo. vii. 24, rrjv hiKalav Kpicriv Kplvere 

1 Tim. i. 18, ha arpaTevrj ttjv KaXrjv arpareiav (Plut. Pomp. 

41), Mk. iv. 41, i(^oßr)6r}aav (f)6ßov fjueyav 1 Tim. vi. 12, 2 Tim. 

iv. T, Eev. xvii. 6, 1 P. iii. 6 (Gen. xxvii. 33, Zach. i. 15, Jon. 

i. 10, iv. 1, 6, Wisd. ix. 3 ^). This is very common in Greek 

writers ; see especially Lob. Paral. p. 5 1 sqq.^ Compare Plat. 

Protag. 360 h, ala^pov^; (p6ßov<; (poßovvraf Xen. Me7n. 1. 5. 6, 

BovXeueLv hovXeiav ou8e/jLi,ä<; '^ttov alaxpf^v Her. 5. 11^ , iia^j^v 

ifiaxßaavTo Icrxvp^jv (magnam pugnavimus pugnam, Terent. 

Adelpli. 5. 3. 57), Plat. Apel. 28 b, tolovtov eirtrtjSev/jLa i-mTr)- 

^eucra?' p. 36 c, evepyerelv rrjv /jLeylarrjv evepyeaiav Alciphr. 2. 

3, Beirai fiev irdcra<^ 3e?Jcret?" Lysias, 1. Theomnest. 27, ttoXKov^ 

heKoi aXkov^ KLvhvvov^ fie6' vjmmv eKLvhhvevaeiVldit. Conv.20^ c), 

Demosth. Neoer. 517 b, Ep. p. 121 b, Aristot. Polit 3. 10, Rhet. 

2. 5. 4, Long. 4. 3, ^schin. Ep. 1. 121 b, Lucian, Asin. 11, Phi- 

lo^tY. Apoll. 2.32: see also Georgi, Vind. 199 sq., Wetst. XL 321 

(Gesen. Lg. p. 8 1 ^). This construction is found with a passive 

verb in Eev. xvi. 9, iKav/xarriaOTjo-av ol avOpwrrot Kav/xa /jiiya 

(Plat. Euthyd. 275 e, (ocpeXelrai ti]v fjueylarrjv (i)(pe\eiav' 

Plutarch, Cces. bo, al.). 

1 Herrn. Soph, Phil 281^ Eurip. Androm. 220 sq., Krug. p. 19 sq, [Don. p. 
501 : for the different kinds of such accusatives see Jelf 548. 2. See also 
Riddell, Plat. Apol p. 110 sq.] 

2 [This word objective is surely a misprint : at all events an objective genitive 
is of rare occurrence in this construction. See especially Lobeck, Paral. p. 513 
sq. : " In proverbio . . . TavraXov (pößov (poßov[jLa.i minime significatur Tantalum 
timeo, sed timeo id quod Tantalus pertimescere dicitur sive Tantalico quodam 
timore angor. "] 

^ [In this passage there is no qualifying adjective.] 

* See Fischer, Well. III. i. 422 sq., Bernh. p. 106 sq., Ast, Plat. PoUt. 316, 
Weber, Dem. p. 471, Matth. p. 744 sq. [?], § 408, 421. Rem. 3. 
^ [Gesen. Heb. Gr. p. 221 (Bagst.).] 


So with a relative pronoun : Jo. xvii. 26, 17 ayd-n-q rjv rjydTnjo-ds 
/x€' E. ii. 4, Mk. X. 38, to ßdTTTLcrfxa o iyo) ßa7rTit,oixaL ßaiTTLcrOrjvaL. 

It is a different case when the cognate noun denotes the 
objective result of the action, and consequently a concrete no- 
tion ; as hiaOi^Kriv hiaTiOeaöai (Jud. ii. 2), fiaprvpiav jiapTvpelv, 
ifKovTov TrkovTelv (Dan. xi. 2), '^rj(f)LcrpLa 'yjrTjcpL^eaOao, dfiapra- 
V6LV afiaprlav (1 Jo. v. 16), for make a covenant, hear a testimony, 
etc. (Ewald, Gr. 595). Here the nouns do not absolutely need 
to be supported by adjectives, etc. (as al(T')(^pav apLapTiav afxap- 
rdveuv Soph. Phil. 1249, Plat. Phcecl. 113 e, Lucian, Tim. 112, 
Dio Chr. 32, 361) : compare E. iv. 8 (from the LXX), ?7%Ata- 
T^revaev al'^^fiaXcoo-Lav Jud. v. 12, 2 Chr. xxviii. 17, Demosth. 
Steph. 2. 621 b. Yet it is only in connexion with relative 
clauses that these expressions are usually found : Jo. v. 32, rj 
fiapTvpia, fjv jxapTvpel irepl ifiov' 1 Jo. v. 10, H. viii. 10, avrr] 
7) BcaO^KT], Tjv BiaOijo-o/jiat (x. 16, — but in viii. 9 Sta6ijKr}v iroieiv), 
A. iii. 25, L. i. 73, 1 Jo. ii. 25, Mk. iii. 28 : compare Isocr. 
j^gin. 936, Lucian, Paras. 5. It cannot however be denied 
that such combinations in Hebrew and Greek have greater 
fulness and vividness than our general expressions make a 
covenant, hear testimony. 

Lastly, we must entirely exclude the cases in which the sub- 
stantive denotes something objective and material which exists 
apart from the action of the verb, as (^vXdaoeiv (j)vkaKd<; (the 
watches) Xen. An. 2. 6. 10, (f)6pov cj)€peLv Aristoph. Av. 191, 
Aristot. Pol. 2.8, Lucian, Paras. 43. In the K T. compare L. 
ii. 8, cj)vXdaaovTe<; (pv\atcd<; t^? vvkt6<;' viii. 5, tov cnretpaL tov 
airopov avTov' Mt. xiii. 30, Bi^aare B€(7/jbd<; ^ tt^oo? to KaraKavaai, 
hind hundles ; Mt. vii. 24, 6<^Ti<i MKoSo/xTjaep ryv oLKiav avrov' 
L. vi. 48 ; compare also 1 P. iv. 2 (aKorjv aKovehv Obad. 1). In 
some of these instances no other form of expression was possible 
(compare also diroarokov^ aTrocrTeXXetz^, legates legare Cic. Vatin. 
15, ypd/jLfjLara ypd(j)6Lv Dem. Polycl. 710 b), and the connexion 
of the noun with the verb is merely etymological and historical. 
On these constructions in general (which in Greek writers are 
much more diversified) see Wunder on Lobeck's edition of Soph. 
Ajax p. 37 sqq. 

Akin to this construction are opKov o/xj/vVat L. i. 73 ^ (De- 

' [The TCiidinp; Iriffocn lU 5. (/»'ec. , Tiscli. ed. 8) is strongly supported.] 
^ [Noticed in the preceding paragraph.] 


mosth. Jp^t. 579 c), ßiovv ;^poi/oi/ 1 P. iv. 2 (t,rjv ßlov, Diod. S. 
£xc. Vat. p. 49) ; Sc/kii/ (TrXrjya^) TroAAa?, oXtya?, to wliicli is further 
joined an accusative of tlie ])erson (compare L. xii. 47) : see Wunder 
/. c. p. 86. L. ii. 44, qXOov yfUpa^; o?)6v, ihey went a day's jotirneij, 
and A. viii. 39, cTropcv'ero ttjv 686v uvtov (compare 68üv ^aSt^civ 
Plut. Coriol. 9, and in the LXX 1 S. vi. 9, Num. xxi. 33, Ex. xiii. 
17), scarcely need any remark ; yet see Wunder p. 41 sq. (Jelf 558). 
The dative-construction is analogous : (fiowelv <fi(Dvy fxiyaXr) A. 
xvi. 28, and ßoav or KpaCecv (fnovrj fxcy. Mk. XV. 34, Mt. xxvii. 50, 
A. vii. 60, op/co) ofjLvvvaL A. ii. 30, x^P^ xaLpf.iv 1 Th. iii. 9 ^ (dyoA- 
Xiaa-Oai X'^P^ aveKXakrjTiü 1 P. i. 8), Krjpvcra-fiv (jnuvfj fjceydXy Rev. V. 2 
[A'ec] ; also Trotw öavarw •^/xeXAci/ dTroOv^a-KCLV Jo. xii. 33, xviii. 32. 
Compare Aristot. Pol 3. 9, Plut. Coriol. 3 (Jon. i. 16, Ad. Ap. 4), 
Kriig. p. 18 (Bengel on Rev. xviii. 2) : compare § 54. 3. 

3. It has been maintained that in several places, in accord- 
ance with the Hebrew idiom, a preposition, iv (^), takes the 
place of the accusative of the object ; but when the passages are 
more closely examined, we soon find that the preposition was 
admissible in its proper meaning. 

a. A. XV. 7, 060^ ev 7)^iv i^eke^aro Sta toO aTO/jbaTo<; fiov 
cLKovcrac ra e6v7) k.t.X, must not be compared with ^ inn. The 
meaning is, amongst its (the apostles) ; for, in the first place, 
the singular /lov is used by Peter immediately afterwards ; and, 
secondly, we must have regard to the mention of ra eOvrj (as 
the apostolic sphere of operation) : " God has made the choice 
amongst us, that the Gentiles should be instructed through 
me." See also Olshausen in loc. On the Hebrew 2 ins, some- 
times rendered in the LXX by sKkey. iv, 1 S. xvi. 9, 1 K. viii. 
16, 1 Chr. xxviii. 4, Neh. ix. 7 (which however Gesenius did not 
even feel it necessary to explain), see Ewald, Gr. 605.^ 

h. 'O/xoXoyelv iv, Mt. x. 32, L. xii. 8, to make a confession on 
some one, i.e., with another turn of the phrase, respecting^ some 
one. Bengel gives a different explanation. The Hebrew p}i nnin^ 
Ps. xxxii. 5, has not quite the same meaning. 

^ [Here -^ x'^'P"/^-^ i^ay be for r'v x-, ^Y attraction : see Ellic. and Alf. in loc] 
2 [Ewald compares tliis with the use of 3 after verbs of clinging to, taking 

hold q/, the fundamental notion being that of *' immediate proximity " (Lehrb. 
p. 556 sq.) : Gesenius's view(jf%es. s. v. 3) is substantially the same.] 

^ [The German preposition here used (über) means both over and respecting. 
— Bengel says " iv, in : i.e. quum de me quaeritur." Similarly Fritzsche : " tes- 
timonium edere in aliquo, i.e. in alicujus causa." Meyer's explanation resembles 
Winer's : compare Cremer. But see Westcott, Canon p. 301 ; also Godet in 


4. Douhle Accusative. 

a. Two accusatives, one of the person and the other of the 

thing (Matth. 417 sq^., Jelf 582 sq., Don. p. 500), are found, as a 

rule, with verbs of clothing and unclothing, Ja xix. 2, Mt. xxvii. 

28,^ 31, Mk. XV. 17, Rev. xvii. 4 ; of {giving to eat and) giving 

to drink, Mk. ix. 41, 1 C. iii. 2 ; ^ of anointing, Eev. iii. 18 (H. i. 

9) ; of loading, L. xi. 46 ; of adjuring (by), A. xix. 13, 1 Th. v. 

27 ; oi reminding ofiavayunxv^dKeiv), 1 Civ. 17, Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 

37, Her. 6. 140 (but avayiv. Tiva rivo^ Xen. Cyr. 6.4. 13) ; of 

teaching, Jo. xiv. 2 6 ; of asking (either requesting or inquiring), 

Mt. vii. 9, Jo. xvi. 23, 1 P. iii. 15 (alreZv), Mt. xxi. 24 (Lob. Fa- 

ral. p. 522), Mk. iv. 10 {ipwrav). Evayjekl^eadaL is only once 

construed with a double accusative, in A. xiii. 32 ; compare 

Heliod. 2. 10, Alciphr. 3. 12, Euseb. K E.S.4: v. I. For Kpv- 

irreiv tlvol tl (Matth. 421) KpvirreLV tl airb tlvo<; is always used 

or at all events implied ; see Col. i. 26, L. xviii. 34, xix. 42. 

After ^vhdcrK€iv the person taught is in one passage (Rev. ii. 1 4) 

expressed by ev tlvl (as if, to give instruction on some one ^), but 

this reading is not well attested : other and better MSS. have 

ihihaa-Ke reo BakaK, comp. Thilo, Apocr. I. 656 (? ^'^, Job xxi. 

22). Besides alrecv tlvci tl we meet with alreiv ri irapd or airo 

Tivo^,A. iii. 2, ix. 2, Mt. xx. 2-0 (Xen. An. 1. 3. 16). Xpleiv 

TLvd is joined with a dative of the material in A. x. 38, as oXel- 

(p€Lv uniformly is (Mk. vi. 1 3, Jo. xi. 2, al). We also find viro- 

pLifivrjdKeLV TLva irepi tlvo<;, 2 P. i. 12; irepißdXkeaOau iv^ Rev. 

iii. 5, iv. 4 {Rec.'\\ rjfjb^L€afievo<; iv, Mt. xi. 8, L. vii. 25 (with 

the dative in Plat. Protag. 321 a). For dcfyaipecaOal TLvd tl we 

find d(j)aLp. TL diro tlvo<; L. xvi. 3. 

We may perhaps explain H. ii. 17, IXda-KecrOai ras d/xa/ortas 
(comimre Ecclus. xxviii. 5, Dan. ix. 24 Theodot.), expiare peccata, on 

1 [Mt. xxvii. 28 is very doubtful : in Rev. xvii. 4 Rec. has the dative, but 
;ipy)arently without any authority.] 

'^ To tliis class belongs also ■4^a>iJ(,'i'C,uv, Num. xi. 4, Dt. viii. 16, Wis. xvi. 20 ; 
for this we find ^ufx.j'C^uv nvä rm Janibl. Pi/th. 13. But in 1 0. xiii. 3 •4'U//.tZ,uv 
TTuvrcc TU. v-TTup^ovrec is io cotweH into f 00(1 {use atifood) all my <joods. 

3 2 Chr. xvii. mtirT'H ^Qp is not a certain example of this construction in 

Hebrew, as the meaning ])robably is teach in Judah. — In A. vii. 22, Wa.thvßn 
TTactrn ffo(p'iu, does not stand for rrüffetv ffo(p'ntv (comjiare ])iod. S. 1. 91) ; the dative 
jioints out the means of the (tducation, whilst Wai^. ' <ro<pixv would be 
cdoctvs est (institutus ad) sapientiam. The true reading however is probably 
Iv -jr. ffnipia. : eonijiare J'lat. Crilo 50 d. 

■• [To this should jtrobably be added -ffiptßüxxuv nvi n, L. xix. 43 (Rec, Treg., 
Westcott) : A. iJuttniann p. 149.] 


the supposition tliat the expression IXda-Kea-OaL tov Ocov Ta<; d/xaprta? 
had come into use : the verb is tluni used altogether in a passive 
sense, in 1 S. iii. 14, i^cXacrdyja-CTai dSiKta OLKOV 'HA,t. 

The accusative neuter of pronouns (rt, to avrd, xaWa) and of ad- 
jectives (/Acya, etc.), which is joined to many verbs along witli an 
accus, or genitive of the person (as ßkairTeiv L. iv. 35, w^eActi/ 
G. V. 2, comp. Lucian, Tim. 119, dSiKtti/ A. xxv. 10, G. iv. 12, 
Phil. 18, fjivrja-Orjv at 1 C. xi. 2), must be referred essentially to the 
same principle ; ^ only the construction with the double accusative 
has stopped short, so to speak, at the first stage. ^ I should thus 
explain Mt. xxvii. 44. It is scarcely necessary to adduce examples 
of intransitive verbs which are joined with such an accusative (of 
the thing), and thus become to a limited extent transitives. See 
however 1 C. ix. 25 Trdi/ra iyKpareverai, xi. 2,^ Ph. i. 6,* ii. 18, 
2 C. vii. 14 (but compare above, no. 1), Mt. ix. 14, Rev. v. 4, al. 
Fritzsche thus explains Rom. vi. 10, o aTriOavev and G. ii. 20, o 
vvv ^w iv aapKc: see above § 24. Rem. 3. 

h. An accusative of subject and predicate (]\Iatth. 420, Don. 
p. 500, Jelf 375. 5): Jo. vi. 15 [i^^c], iva TrocTJcrwcnv avrov 
ßacTiXea' L. xix. 46, vfi€l<; avrov {oIkov) eiroLrjaare oirrfkaiov 
Xrjarcov' H. i. 2, ov eOrjKe KXrjpovofxov (i. 13), Ja. v. 10, vir 68 eiyfjua 
Xdßere tt)? KaKoiraOeca^; .... tov<; irpoc^rjTa^;' H. xii. 9, tol»? 
T>}9 (rapKO'; irarepa^ eiyo^ev Trac^evrdfi' Ph. iii. 7, ravra (^fcephrj) 
'^yrj/jiat ^rj/itav 2 P. iii. 15, rrjv rod Kvptov iqfiMv fiaKpoOvfilav 
(Tcorrjplav riyelade' L. i. 59, eKoXovv avro .... Za-^aptav ver. 
53 (Pol. 15. 2. 4). This double accusative is especially found 
after verbs of making, naming (nominating), setting up, regarding 
as, etc. : Mt. iv. 19, xxii. 43, Jo. v. 11, x. 33, xix. 7, A. v. 31, 
vii. 10, XX. 28, L. xii. 14, xix. 46, Rom. iii. 25, vi. 11, viii. 29, 
1 C. iv. 9, ix. 5, 2 C. iii. 6, E. ii. 14, Ph. ii. 29, Tit. u. 7, H. vii. 
28, xi. 26, Ja. ii. 5, Rev. xxi. 5, 2 S. ii. 5, 13, iii. 15. 

The accusative of the predicate (of destination) is however 
sometimes annexed by means of the preposition eU : as A. xiii. 
22, rjyeipev avTOL<; tov Aavlh eh ßaaCkea' vii. 21, äveöpe-^ajo 

1 Matt. 415. Rem. 3, 421. Rem. 2, Rost pp. 492, 498 (Jelf 578. 06s. 2, 579. 6). 

^ We also say jem. etwas, viel, etc., fragen, but not jem. eine Nachricht 

^ [1 C. xi. 2 is quoted above, and is evidently retained here (from ed. 5) by 
accident. ] 

* ["The accus, alrl rouro is not governed by ti-toiÖus, but is appended to it 
as specially marking the * content and compass of the action ' (Madvig, Synt. 
§ 27. a.), or, more exactly, ' the object in reference to which the action extends ' 
(Kriig. § 46. 4. 1 sq. ) : " Ellicott in loc. — On the ' ' quantitative accus. " see Riddell, 
Plat. Apol. p. 112 sq., Ellic. on Ph. iv. 13 (Jelf 578. Obs. 2).J 


avTov kavrfi eU vlov for her son} xiii. 47 (compare also the 
passive Xoyl^eo-Oac el? tl A. xix. 27, Eom. ii. 26, ix. 8, § 29. 3. 
Eem.): or by means of w?, 2 Th. iii. 15, koI firj w? e')(6pov (tov- 
Tov, ver. 14) rjyelcrde (3 ^*^'9). This is a Hebraistic construction 
(Ewald, Gr. 603), and is often used by the LXX in imitation of 
the Hebrew: Is. xlix. 6, 2 K. iv. 1, Judith iii. 8, v. 11, Gen. 
xii. 2, xliii. 17, IS. xv. 11, Esth. ii. 7, iv. 4.^ What has been 
quoted from the older Greek writers as parallel with the con- 
struction with eh is of a different kind ; as for instance the eh 
of destination. Her. 1. 34, iravre'^ toIctl '^peovrab e? iroXefioV 
also Eurip. Troacl. 1201, ot» yap eh KaX\o<; TV'^a<; haifjicov BlScoai' 
Alciphr. 3. 28. In later writers, however, we find real parallels : 
e.g. Niceph. Constant, p. 51 (ed. Bonn), o r?)? TroXe«? airai} 
8^yLto9 .... avayopevovcnv eh ßaaCKea Aprefjiiov' p. 18, eh 
yvvaiKa BlBcofil aoi avTrjV Geo. Pachym. I. 349, ttjv eKelvov 
eKyovov Xaßcov eh yvvalfca' Theophan. contin. p. 223, fce'^pt- 
ap.evo<; eh ßaaiXea : see, in general, the indices to Pachymeres, 
Leo Grammaticus, and Theophanes, in the Bonn edition ; also 
Acta Apocr. p. 71. 

To the same mode of expression might be referred H. xi. 8, 
XafißdveLv eh KXTjpovo/juiav' and perhaps A. vii. 53, eXdßeTe tov 
vofjLov eh hiaraya^ dyyeXcov, ye received the laiu for (i. e. as) 
ordinances of angels, see Bengel in loc. ; but it is easier to give 
eh the meaning which it bears in Mt. xii. 41. In Ph. iv. 16, 
the construction eh ttjv ^(peLav jmoi eireiju-^are is evidently differ- 
ent from TTjv %/3etaz/ puoL eir., and hence has no place here. 

L. ix. 14, Kara/cA-tVare avroi;? KXicriWi ava, TrevT-qKovra (in rOWS 
by fifties), and Mk. vi. 39, cVera^ci/ avrots avaKXlvat 7rdvra<s (tv/jl- 
TToorta o-vfXTTocna (in separate table-companies), are substantially of 
the same kind as the above examples. These accusatives are most 
easily understood as predicative ; see § 59. 

o. Verbs which in the active voice govern an accusative of 
both jjerson and thing, retain the latter in the passive : 2 Th. ii. 
15, TrapaSoaet^; a? i^cSd^OrjTe' L.xvi. 19, eueStSvaKeTO 7rop<f)vpav' 
H. vi. 9. Compare Ph. iii. 8 ; also 1 C. xii. 13, omitting [tlie 
second] eh. So also in the constructions noticed above, no. 2 : 

* Coiiij)are Xcn. An. 4. 5. 24, vuXovs il; 1a.(rfji.ov ßamxCl rpi(pof>t.ivot>s ; whereas 
Arriari {Al. 1. 26, 5) has, rohs 'tTTouf, o'vi 1a.(T[jt,lv ßcca-iXu 'ir^Kpiv, see Ellendt 
in loc. 

'^ [There is some mistake in the last reference. — All tliese passages illustrate 
the construction with i\t : the pleonastic use ol" ü$ with these verbs need not be 
considered Hebraistic, sec § 65. 1.] 


L. xii. 48, Bap/)(T€Tat 6\iya<; (compare Sepeiv iLva TrXTjyd';) 
Mk. X. 38, TO ßaTTTLo-fia, Ö iyo) ßaTTTi^o/xai, ßaTTTLadfjvat' IIqv. 
xvi. 9 (compare Luciaii, Tox. Gl, Dion. Hal. IV. 2162. 8). The 
accusative of the predicate passes into a nominative in H. v. 10, 
7rpo<;a'yop€v6el<i .... ap-^iepeix;' Mt. v. 9, avrol vloc 6eov kXtj- 
6rjcrovraL' Ja. iv. 4, e')(6po<^ Beov KadicrTaTai. 

Those verbs also which in the active voice govern a dative of 
the person with an accusative of the thing, retain the latter in 
the passive, being treated in the passive voice exactly like causa- 
tive verbs : G. ii. 7, TreTr/o-reu/xat to evayyektov (from Trcarevco 
TLVi Tt; in the passive, nnaTevofial tc), 1 C. ix. 17, Eom. iii. 2, 
1 Tim. i. 11,^ see Fischer, WelL III. I. 437, Matth. 424. 2. 
üepiKeifiaL follows the same analogy: A. xxviii. 20, ttjv aXvcnv 
ravTTjv irepUeifiaL (from ä\vaL<; TrepLKecral fJLot), H. v. 2 ; see 
D'Orville, Charit, p. 240, Matth. I. c. 

In this way the accusative came to be used with passive 
verbs, in general, to indicate the more remote object, and 
especially the part of the subject which is in the state or con- 
dition indicated by the verb : 1 Tim. vi. 5, BtecpOapfievoc rov vovv 
(as if from ^ca^delpeLV tlv\ tov vovv), 2 Tim. iii. 8, Jo. xi. 44, 
BeBefiivo'^ tov<; ttoSo-? Kal Ta9 'XJ^'lpa<^' Ph. i. 11, TreTrXTjpcofievoi 
KapiTov hiicaLO(Jvvr)<i'^ 2 C. iii. 18, Tr]v avTi-jv elKova fxera/iopcfyov- 
fieOa-^ H. X. 22 sq. On this compare Valcken. ad Herod. 7. 39, 
Härtung, Casus 61 (Don. p. 500, Jelf 584). 

Whether Mt. xi. 5, Tn-ouxot cvayyeAt^ovrai, and H. iv. 2, ia-fJih/ 
evrjyyeXia-ixivoL (ver. 6) — compare 2 S. xviii. 31, Joel ii. 32 — fall 
under the above rule,^ or whether they should be derived from 
€vayyc\L^€crOaL TLvd tl, remains doubtful : see however § 39. 1. 

6. The accusative employed to denote a material object 
mediately was gradually extended more and more, and thus 
there arose certain concise constructions of various kinds, which 

^ On the other hand, see e. g. 1 C. xiv. 34, oIk WtTfi-Tniii air als XaXsTv' 
A. xxvi. 1. 

^ [See EUic. in loc. and on Col. i. 9. This construction of vXvpoZfföoci is fol- 
lowed by yii^u in Rev. xvii. 3, 4, yi/^ov t« WofLccTo., to. a.Ka.dxp7it. In modern 
Greek words of fulness may take an accus., see MuUach p. 331. For 2 C. vi. 13 
see below, § 66. 1. h. — It will be observed that -rXi^poZcrSai, like ^£/)i/*väy, is found 
in the N. T. with aU three cases.] 

3 ['^MiraftopPovv, though often construed with us, yet, as a verb of developing 
into a certain form, has a right to take a simple accusative " (i. e. of the state 
into which) : ' * this accus, (of the thing) remains unchanged when the verb is 
passive :" Meyer in loc. "The compounds of fe-ira, which denote clmnge gene- 
rally take an accus, of the new state or position : " Jelf 636. Ohs.] 

* [That is, the rule that "TttaTivu nvt rt may pass into -x-iffn-jiTcii n.] 


we are compelled to resolve by prepositions, etc. : in these the 
!N". T. participates to a moderate extent only. First of all, in 
definitions of time and space we ourselves can still apprehend 
the accusative as the case of the object : L. xxii. 41, äireo-iraardr} 
aiT avTMV (ü<^el XtOov ßoXrjv, he loithdreiv a stones cast (as if it 
were, by his withdrawing he accomplished the distance of a 
stone's cast) ; Jo. vi. 19, iXakrjKÖTe^ w? o-raSiov^; eUoai TrevTe 
(Matth. 425. 1), 1 P. iv. 2, tov eTrlXoiirov iv aapKi ßiMaac %po- 
vov Jo. ii. 12, iK€L e/xeivav ov TroXXa? rjfi6pa<^' L. i. 75, ii. 41, 
XV. 29, XX. 9, Jo. i. 40, v. 5,^ xi. 6, Mt. ix. 20, A. xiii. 21, H. 
xi. 23, iii. 17. (Madv. 29 sq.) Thus in the K T., as elsewhere, 
the accusative is the ordinary designation of duration of time (in 
Jo. V. 5, however, err} belongs to e^^cov, see Meyer). Sometimes 
it denotes the (approximate) point of time, as in Jo. iv. 52, i^Oh 
copav eßhöjirjv cK^rjKev avrov 6 irvpeTo^' A. x. 3, Rev. iii. 3 ; but 
in this case irepl with the accus, is more frequently used. See 
Krug. p. 17 (Dom p. 498, Jelf 577 sq.). 

When the accusative, either a single word or a phrase, is 
annexed to other words to define them more exactly, as re- 
gards kind, number, degree, or sphere, the construction most 
nearly resembles the use of the accusative with passive verbs 
noticed above (no. 5) : ^ Jo. vi. 10, äveireaav ol avhpe^ tov äpiO- 
/nov oü^el TrevraKL^i'^LXiOL (as regards number), — compare Isocr. 
Big. 842, Aristot. Pol. 2. 8, Ptol. 4. 6. 34 (many other examples 
are given by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 364 sq., Parol, p. 528) ; Jude 
7, TOV 6/jbOLov TovTOi^ TpoTTov iK7ropv€vaa(Tat' Mt. xxiii. 37, 
ov TpoTTov 6pvi<; €7rcavvd<yei' 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Plat. Pep. 7. 517 c, 
Plut. Educ. 4. 4, 9. 18), A. xviii. 3, aKrjvo'TTOio^ ttjv Te'^vrjv 
(Lucian, Asin. 43, Agath. 2. 46, Acta Apocr. p. 61). This 
accusative however is very rare in the N. T. : even in A. xviii. 3 
the best MSS. have tj} Te^vg, compare § 31. On the other hand, 
we meet with a number of purely adverbial adjectives, which 
possibly were in very common use in the colloquial language : 
as fjLaKpdv to a distance, far, fxdTr}v in cassum, aKp^riv (the mo- 
ment) nov), TTJV dp'^rjv (Jo. viii. 25), Bcopedv, to tcXo^ (1 P. iii. 
8), comp. § 54. 1. See on the whole Herrn. Vig. p. 882 sq. To 

1 [Jo. V. 5 is wrongly quoted here : the true construction is given in the next 
sentence to tliis. ] 

^ As to Hebrew, comp. Ewald p. 591 sq. [Gesen. Or. p. 193 (Bagst.), 
Kalisch, Gr. I. 248 sq.] 


the same category belong also certain parenthetical phrases, as 
in liom. xii. 18, el hvvarov, to ef v/jloju, fiera Travrayv avOp. 
elpijvevovrer ix. 5 (i. 15^), H. ii. 17, v. 1, Koni. xv. 17 (Matth. 
L^83, Aladv. 31, Jelf 579, Don. p. 502). 

How the accusative of quality coincides with the dative has 
been already noticed. Thus tw dptOfjiio is sometimes found instead 
of Tov apiO/xov. Where in the N. T. the dative is used, we commonly 
find the accusative in Greek writers : as to ycVos (natione) Xen. Cyr. 
4. 6. 2, Herod. 1. 8. 2, Diod. S. 1. 4, Arr. Al. 1. 27. 8, and t(3 yeVct 
Mk. vii. 2G, A. iv. 36 (Palseph. 6. 2, 11. 2); UXv^aSai r^ tj/vxfj 
H. xii. 3, and W/i/ if^v^yi^ Diod S. 20. 1 ; /?pa8cts ry KapSta L. xxiv. 
25, but ßpaSvs TOV vovv Dion. H. De Lys. p. 243 (Lips.). See Kriig. 
p. 18, Lob. Paral p. 528 (Wetstein, N. T. I. 826). In Demosth. 
Ep. 4. p. 118 b, 6pa(Tv<i Tip ySto) stands by the side of /x^ TroAtriys t-^i/ 
<fivcrtv. For TovTov TOV TpoTTov cvcu Greek prose writers more fre- 
quently use Kara r. t. Tporrov. 

We have a very singular expression in Mt. iv. 15, 68ov Oa- 
XacrcTT/s (from Isaiah), usually rendered by the way. Such passages 
as 1 S. vi. 9, 6t 6S6v bpimv aur^s Tropcvcrcrat,^ Num. xxi. 33, Ex. 
xiii. 17 (compare L. ii. 44) do not justify this use of an accusative 
side by side M^th vocatives in an address, without any government 
(by a verb) : this would lie altogether beyond the limits of a prose 
style (Bernh. p. 114 sq.). Thiersch's remarks (p. 145 sq.) do not 
decide the point. Can it be that we ought to read ol 6Sov 6oX. 
(oUovvTes), according to the LXX 1 ^ Meyer supplies eT8e (from 
ver. 16) as the governing verb, but this is harsh.* The topogra- 
phical difficulties of the ordinary translation are not insuperable ; 

^ [This passage is taken differently below, § 34. 2. If it comes in here, t« 
KXT ifci is parenthetical, "as far as I am concerned, there is readiness" (Meyer, 
ed. 3). In § 34 Winer joins ri with Tpodvfiov, taking koct l/ai as an attributive : 
so Fritzsche (propensio ad me attinens), Meyer (ed. 4), al. Bengel and others 
take TO KXT ifjLi as the subject, vp'od. as the predicate ("ray part is ready," 
Vaughan) : that the phrase ro kut ifti is elsewhere used adverbially (Fritzsche) 
is no sufficient objection to this. ] 

^ "Wunder on Lobeck, Ajax 41 sq. 

^ [It is hardly correct to speak of reading ol oi. 6a\. "according to the 
LXX." The Vat. and Sin. MSS. agree in ... . Neip^. xa.) ol XotTol ol r«» 
•rxpdXiov {Vat. -Xictv) xou Tipxv r. 'lop^. x. t. X. After 'Siip^., Alex. inserts 
ohov 6a,xä.(rffr,? ; and after -xa.pi.'kiov, xuToixovvTSi : in both these additions it has 
the support of one of the correctors of Sin., — the one whom Tisch, indicates by 
C* (about the 7th century). In no reading therefore does o^o* 6ak. occur in 
connection with el.] 

* [Meyer took this view in his 1st and 2nd editions, but in edd. 3, 4, 5, he regards 
ooiv as an adverbial accus., "sea-wards:" similarly De W., Bleek, A. Buttm., 
Grimm. In the LXX see especially 1 K, viii. 48, 2 Chr. vi. 38, Dt. xi. 30 
(([uoted by Meyer and Thiersch), where «5ö» is not under the government of a 
verb, but answers to the Hebrew -rj-iri, used absolutely in the sense oi versus. 

Meyer and Bleek take xipa* t. 'I. as an independent clause indicating a new 
region, Percea.] 



only iripav t. 'lopS. must not be regarded (as in Isaiah) as an inde- 
pendent member, for with such a clause Matthew has here no direct 

7. It has been maintained that in certain passages the accusa- 
tive is altogether absolute ; but a closer examination will show 
the grammatical reason for this case in the structure of the 
sentence. Thus Rom. viii. 3, to aBvvarov rod vofiov . . . . o 
^609 Tov eavTOV vlov irejx'y^a'^ .... KareKpive ttjv äfiaprlav, 
is really equivalent to to aBvpaTov tov vo/jlov eTroiTjaev 6 6e6<;, 
irejjL'y^ra'^ .... koL KaTaKpivcov k.t.X. (and here aSvvaTov need 
not be taken in a passive sense). To aSvvaTov may however be 
a nominative placed at the head of the sentence (compare Wis. 
xvi. 17).^ In A. xxvi. 3 the accusative fyvooo-Trjv ovTa is cer- 
tainly to be explained as an anacoluthon ; such instances are 
of frequent occurrence when a participle is annexed, see § 63. 
I. 2. a? In L. xxiv. 46 sq., ehei iraOelv tov XptaTov . . . Kal 
Kr)pv')(6rjvaL eirl tw ovofxaTL avTov fieTavoiav .... dp^dfjuevov^ 
diro 'lepovaaXy/jb, the accusative in itself (in the construction 
of the accusative with the infinitive) is grammatically clear : 
there is merely some looseness in the reference of dp^dfxevov, 
heginning (i.e., the KTjpvaacov heginning), — or it may be taken 
impersonally, in the sense of a heginning being made (compare 
Her. 3. 91): see also Kypke I. 344 sq. In Eev. i. 20 the accu- 
satives depend on ypdyfrov (ver. 19), as has long been admitted. 
Lastly, in Eev. xxi. 17, ifieTprjae to Tel')(p^ t?}? TroXew? eKaTov 
Teaaap. ttt^^wz/, p^eTpov dvOpcoirov k.t.X., the last Avords are a 
loose apposition to the sentence ifxeTprjae to Tel'xp^ k.tX.: com- 
pare Matth. 410 (Jelf 580, Don. p. 502).* On an accusative in 
apposition to a whole sentence, as in Eom. xii. 1, see § 59. 9. 

^ [See § 63. 2. d; and on L. xxiv. 47, § QQ. 3.] 

2 Schwarz {De Solcec. j). 94 sq.) has not adduced any example that is exactly 
of the same kind. 

■* [Tregelles, Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, read ap^df^ivoi : see 
§63. 2. a.] 

^ Compare further Matthise, Eur. Med. p. 501, Härtung p. 54, Wanuowski, 
Syntax. Anom. p. 128 sqq. 


Section XXXTII. 


A considerable number of verbs, especially sucli as denote an 
emotion or a tendency of the mind, are joined to their predicate 
by means of a preposition. In this point N. T. usage sometimes 
agrees with that of classic writers, sometimes rather betrays a 
Hebrew-Oriental colouring. 

a. Verbs of rejoicing or grieving, which often take a simple 
dative in Greek authors (Fritz. Rom. III. 78 sq.), are in the 
N. T. usually followed by eirl with the dative:^ as x^lpeiv, Mt. 
xviii. 13, L. i. 14, A. xv. 31, 1 C. xiii. 6, Eev. xi. 10 (compare 
Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 12, Diod. S. 19. 55, Isocr. Fermut 738, Arrian, 
Ind. 35. 8); evcppaiveaOat, Eev. xviii. 20 (Ecclus. xvi. 1, 1 Mace, 
xi. 44, Xen. Co?iv. 7. 5); avXXvTrelaOaL, Mk. iii. 5 (Xen. Mem. 
3. 9. 8, compare ')(aXe'jTw<; cpepetv eirL rivt Xen. Hell. 7. 4. 21). 
Sometimes however these verbs take iv (Xvirelv iv, Jacobs, 
Achill. Tat. p. 814) : as ^aipetz/, L. x. 20, Ph. i. 18 (Col. i. 24, 
compare Soph. Trcicli. 1119) ; 6v(f)paLV6a6aL, A. vii. 41 ; dyaX- 
\caa6at, 1 P. i. 6 (but dyoXKeaOaL iiri Xen. Mem. 2. 6. 35, 
3. 5. 16). 

Of the verbs which signify to he angry, dyavaKTelv is con- 
strued with Trepi (to be angry on account of some one), Mt. xx. 
24, Mk. X. 41; but opjL^eaOat (like dyavaKrelv eVz'Lucian, Äb- 
die. 9, Aphthen. Progymn. c, 9, p. 267) with eVt tlvl, Eev. xii. 
17, compare Joseph. Bell. Jud. 3. 9. 8. In the LXX we even 
find opyt^eaOaL ev tlvl, Jud. ii. 1 4, and in later Greek opyt^eadau 
Kara tcvo<;, as Malal. pp.43, 102, 165,al. The opposite, evBoKecp, 
like the Hebrew ? y^n and after the example of the LXX, is 
construed with h (to have pleasure in), whether the reference is 
to persons (Mt. iii. 17, L. iii. 22, 1 C. x. 5), or to things, 2 C. 
xii. 10, 2 Th. ii. 12 (eeXeiv iv Col. ii. 18, compare 1 S. xviii. 
22 ? ^) : Greek writers would be content with the simple dative. 

^ Compare Wurm, Dinarch. p. 40 sq. 

2 [The objections to this inteq^retation are, (1) that this harsh Hebraism is 
not found elsewhere in the N. T. ; (2) that in the 0. T. this construction occurs 
only in connexion with a personal object (Ellicott, Meyer, A, Buttm. p. 376) : 
the latter objection is overstated, see Ps. cxi. 1, cxlvi. 10. On the other 
explanations see Ellicott and Alford in loc. The former sujiplies Karaßpxßivuv 
after fiXuv (so Meyer, A. Buttm.) : by Alford, "Wordsworth, and others, ^jXa/v is 


^Ap/celaOaL, which usually takes a dative (L. iii. 14, H. xiii. 5), 
is once construed with eVt (3 Jo. 10). 

h. Verbs signifying to wonder, be amazed, are followed by eirl 
with the dative, as they very frequently are in Greek writers : 
6aufjbd^6cv, Mk. xii. 17, L. xx. 26 ; eKirXr^aaea-Oai, Mt. xxii. 33, 
Mk. i. 22, xi. 18, L. iv. 32, A. xiii. 12. We find also Oavixd^eLv 
irepl Tivo^, L. ii. 18 (Isseus 3. 28^), and 6av/jud^. Bid n to 
wonder on account of something, Mk. vi. 6, as in ^1. 12. 6, 14. 
36, Oavfjbd^etv riva Bid tl. In L. i. 21, however, Oavjju. ev rat 
y^povL^eLv may mean while he delayed ; yet compare Ecclus. xi. 
21. On ^evl^ecrOal tlvl see above, § 31. 1./. 

c. Of verbs signifying to pity, aTTXayxyl^eaOai is usually 
followed by Ittl, either with the accusative (Mt. xv. 32, Mk. vi. 
34, viii. 2, ix. 22), or with the dative, L. vii. 13, Mt. xiv. 14 ; 
once only by irepL, Mt. ix. 36. ^EXeelaOau \e\eelv\ is treated as 
a transitive verb; see § 32. 1. 

d. Verbs of relying on, trusting, hoping, toasting, are construed 
with Ittl, €v, and et?. Tleiroiöa eiri rivc, Mk. x. 24, L. xi. 22, 
2 C. i. 9 (Agath. 209. 5, 306. 20); eTrlro or nva, Mt. xxvii. 43, 
2 Th. iii. 4 ; ev tlvl, Ph. iii. 3.^ UtaTeveiv lirL tlvl, Eom. ix. 
33, 1 P. ii. 6, from the LXX: on TnaTeveiv el'? or eW TLva 
helieve on some one, see above, §31.5. ^EXirl^etv eiri with dative, 
Eom. XV. 12, Ph. iv. 10 ^ (Pol. 1. 82. 6), and with accusative 
1 Tim. V. 5, 1 Mace. ii. 61 ; eU, Jo. v. 45, 2 C. i. 10, 1 P. iii. 5, 
Ecclus. ii. 9 (Herod. 7. 10. 1, Joseph. Bell Jnd. 6. 2. 1, r) eU 
TLva eXTTt? Plut. Galha c. 19); eV, 1 C. xv. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 
25, Mem. 4. 2. 28, Pol. 1. 59. 2 iXirlBa e^eti/ ev t.)} Kavxa- 
adat eiTL tlvl, Eom. v. 2 (Ps. xlviii. 7, Ecclus. xxx. 2, Diod. S. 

16. 70, like o-e/jbvvveaOat Diog. L. 2. 71, Isocr. Big. p. 840, and 
(^vcnovaOaL Diog. L. 6. 24); more frequently ev tlvl, Eom. ii. 

17, 23, V. 3, 1 C. iii. 21, G. vi. 13 (Ps. cxlix. 5, Jer. ix. 23): but 

connected closely with KetTaßpxßtviru (" of purpose," Alford : " by the exercise 
of his mere will," WordswoitJi). Lightlbot, whose explanation agrees with 
"Winer's, quot(;s Test. xii. Pair. Asher 1, eav « yj/v;!(^ii 6iXn iv xaxJ.] 

' C!oinpare SchoeTnann, J.Ha',us p, 244. 

- [A Jiuttniann (p. 175) adds Tfr. e/V, G. v. 10, considering lU vf/,a.i as express- 
ing the object of the trust : so Meyer, De Wette, Lünemann. Others, *' with 
regard to you : " see KUicott in loc. There is the same uncertainty in 2 Th. 
iii. 4.] 

3 [This should be 1 Tim. iv. 10.] 

* [On the constructions of 'u-rt(u in the N. T. see EUicott on 1 Tim. iv. 10. 
See also § ol. 1. c. note.] 


not Kara in 2 C. xi. 1 8 (see Meyer in loc), or vwep in 2 C. vii. 
14, — comp. ix. 2. 

e. Of verbs which signify /o si7i, afiaprdveiv is connected by 
6t9 with the object sinned against, Mt. xviii. 21, L. xvii. 4, 1 C. 
vi. 18, al. ; compare Soph. CEd. C. 972, Her. 1. 138, Isocr. 
Panaih. p. 644, Fermut. p. 750, JiJgin. pp. 920, 934, Marc. 
Anton. 7. 26, Wetstein I. 443 : this verb is also followed by 
7rp6<; TLva Joseph. Aoitt. 14. 15. 2, irepC riva Isocr. Perinut. 
754 [apLapr. tlvl 1 S. xiv. 33, 1 K. viii. 31, 33, Jiid. x. 10). 

/. The verbs apeaKeiv please and cpavijvat appear do not take 
the dative of the person to whom something gives pleasure or 
appears in a certain light, but are followed by the Hellenistic 
preposition evMTriov : A. vi. 5, rjpeG-ev 6 X0709 evooinov iravro^ 
Tov 7r\rj6ov<; (Dt. i. 23), L. xxiv. 11, e^dvijcrav evcoTriov avrcov 
ft)96t \r}po<; TCL prip^ara. In the LXX apeaKeiv is also joined w^ith 
evavTLov tlvo^, Num. xxxvi. 6, Gen. xxxiv. 18, 1 Mace. vi. 60.^ 

g. Of verbs of seeing, ßXeireiv is often followed by ek {in- 
tueri), Jo. xiii. 22, A. iii. 4, — a construction which is not un- 
known to Greek writers, see Wahl. 

The use of the preposition jxerd or avv with verbs of following 
(compare comitari cum aliquo in Latin inscriptions), as in Rev. vi. 8, 
xiv. 13,2 ig^ strictly speaking, an instance of pleonasm. 'AkoAovÖciv 
oTTio-w Ttvog (nns), Mt. X. 38 (Is. xiv. 14), is Hebraistic. 

Substantives derived from such verbs as the above are in like 
manner joined with their object by means of a preposition : as 
7rto-Tt9 Iv XpL(TToj, G. lü. 26, E. 1. 15, al. ; Trapova-ia Trpos vixa<s, Ph. 1. 
26 ; OXcxf/€L^ {mip vfiCiv, E. iii. 13 ; ^^Aos wep ifiov, 2 C. vii. 7 : see 
Fritz. Bom. L 195, 365 sq. 

Section XXXIV. 


1. Though the two classes of nouns, substantives and adjectives, 
differ in the notions which they express, yet the latter (including 
participles) are also found within the circle of substantives. In 
this usage — which is much more varied in Greek than, for in- 

^ [Also in Dt, i. 23 (quoted above), according to Vat] 

* See Wetstein, N. T. T. 717, Lob. p. 354,'Schsef. Demosth. V. 590, Herrn. 
Lucian p. 178, Kriig. p. 74. (Jelf 593. Obs. 2.) 

294 • ADJECTIVES. ' [part III. 

stance, in Latin — the adjective may appear either with or with- 
out the article, and may have any gender, the latter being 
determined sometimes by an original ellipsis, sometimes by the 
power of the masculine and neuter genders to denote men and 
things (Krug. p. 2 sq., Jelf 436, Don. p. 388). Thus we find 
rj ep7]fio<; (yrj), rfj eTnovarj (rj/juepa), StOTrere«? {ayaX/Jia) A, xix. 
35, TO (77] piKov (ix^aapbaV) Eev. xviii. 12, 6 o-o(j)6<;, 6 KkeiTTwv 
E. iv. 28, ßaaiXiK6<;, 6 äp')((ov, oXKorpLOi strangers, KaKoiroioi 
evildoers, to ayaOov (to TrvevjubarLKov, •yjrv^ifcov, 1 C. xv. 46 ?). 

On the adjectives which are made substantives through elhpsis 
see § 64. In the class of personal designations (as (to<I>6<s, ol (to4>ol) 
the following belong characteristically to the N. T. : 6 ttio-tos the be- 
liever, TTto-TOt believers, ayiot, ^kX^ktol, afiaproiXoi Rom. XV. 31, 
xvi. 2, 1 C. vi. 2, 2 C. vi. 15, 1 Tim. i. 15, v. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 10, H. 
xii. 3, Mt. xxiv. 22. So even with an adjective as an attributive, 
Rom. i. 7, 1 C. i. 2, KXrjTOLs dytois ; or with a genitive, as in Rom. 
viii. 33 iKXeKTol Oeov. In all these instances the adjective indicates 
persons (men) to whom the particular quality is attached, though 
there is no necessity for supplying avOpoiiroL (or dScA^ot). So also 
where 6 aXr}6iv6<i is used for God (1 Jo. v. 20), or 6 dytos tov Oeov 
for Christ (L. iv. 34), or 6 Trovrjpo^ for the devil, there is no ellipsis 
of these substantives : the notion is grammatically complete, the True 
One, the Holy One of God, and we must look elsewhere to learn 
what Persons are especially so named in the language of the Bible. 

2. Especially frequent and diversified are the substantivised 
neuters (Kriig. p. 4) ; indeed many of these regularly fill the 
place of a substantive derivable from the same root, though 
not always actually existent. These refer not merely to material 
notions, as fieaov, ea'^arov, ficKpov, ßpw^v, oXiyov, ^avepov, 
KpVTTTov, eXarrov, apaev, k.tX. (particularly with prepositions, 
as et? TO fjbecrov Mk. iii. 3, Jo. xx. 19, /xera fxcKpov Mt. xxvi. 73, 
iv oXlyw A. xxvi. 29, iv tw (pavepo) Mt. vi. 4 [i^c^.], eh ^^ave- 
pov Mk. iv. 22); — but also to the non-material and abstract, 
especially with an appended genitive, as Rom. ii. 4 to 'x^prjaTov 
TOV Oeov (J) 'Xprjo-TOTr]^;)' H. vi. 17 to apbeTaOeTOV Tri<^ ßovXrf^' 
Rom. viii. 3, ix. 22, 1 C. i. 25, 2 C. iv. 17, Ph. iii. 8 to virepexov 
T^9 yvayaew^' iv. 5, to iiTieLKe<^ v/jlmv. We find another con- 
struction in the place of the genitive in Rom. i. 15, to kut 
ifjie TTpodvpuov (to irpoOvpjOV, the pitrpose, Eur. Iph. Taur. 983 
[989]). The plurals of adjectives are as a rule concretes, and 
denote whole classes of things (or persons) : to, opaTu koI dopaTa 
Col. i. 16, eTTOvpdvia and eirlyeia Jo. iii. 12, Ph. ii. 10, tcl ßa- 


Oia liGv. ii. 24, a/5;)^aia 2 C. v. 17. These are sometimes more 
exactly delhied by the context: thus in Jo. iii. 12 eTrovpavLa 
means heavenly trutlis ; in Ph. ii. 10, heavenly heimjs ; in E. ii. 
6 and iii. 10, heavenly places (= ovpavoc, compare the variant 
in E. i. 20), etc. In Kom. i. 20, ra dopara rov deov, the plural 
has reference to the two attributes specified in the following- 
words, viz. Tf T6 atBco<; Bvva/jLL<; koL 66l6t7]<; ; and Philippi has 
explained the word more correctly than Fritzsche. (On E. vi. 
12, TrvevfiaTiKa t?}? irovr^pla'^, see Rem. 3.) 

We must not bring in here 1 P. i. 7, ro SoKtfuov r^s TriVrew?, 
for SoKLfMLov is a substantive proper (there is no adjective Bokl- 
/xtos).^ In Rom. i. 19 also to yi/waroi/ tov Beov is not simply 
equivalent to r; yvtocrts t. 6. ; if it were so, it would be hard to see 
why Paul did not use an expression so familiar to him as y yvwarLs. 
The meaning is either what is known (to man) of God, or what may 
be known of (or in) God.^ 1 prefer the former as the more simple : 
Paul is speaking of the ohjedive knowledge, of the sum of what is 
known of God (from what source, see ver. 20). This objective 
yvoxTTov becomes subjective, inasmuch as it <j>av€p6v iarLv h avrots. 
Hence it is evident why Paul did not write q yvwo-t?. 

This mode of expression, which arises quite simply out of the 
nature of the neuter, is not unknown to Greek writers : the later 
prose authors in particular have adopted it from the technical lan- 
guage of philosophy. At the same time, the examples collected by 
Georgi (Hierocr. I. 39) need very much sifting. As real parallels 
may be quoted Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20 a, to tüji/ Oe^v evfxevk' 
Fals. Leg. p. 213 a, to a(r(f>akls avT7J<s' Thuc. 1. 68, to ttlcttov t^? 
TToXtTetas* 2. 71, TO a(T6€V€<; t^s yvu)fJLr]<5' Galen, Protrept. 2, TO TYj^ 
T^XyV* acTTaTor, and to Trjs ßd(Teoi<s cvixeTaKvXicrTOV' Heliod. 2. 15. 83, 
TO vrrepßdWov t^s XvTnjr Plat. Phcedr. 240 a, Strabo 3. 168, Phi- 
lostr. Ai). 7. 12, Diod. S. 19. 55, Diog. L. 9. 63. With the 
participle this construction is especially common in Thucydides (and 
the Byzantines).^ An abstract noun and a neuter adjective are 
combined in Plutarch, Agis 20, rj TroXXrj evXdßeia koI to irpaov koI 

3. On the other hand, the notion which should be expressed 
by an attributive * adjective is sometimes, by a change of con- 

1 On this passage, and on Ja. i. 3, see Fritz. Prälim. p. 44, 

2 For the latter meaning of yvurros, called in question by Tholuck, see Soph. 
CEd. R. 362 (Herrn.), Plat. Rep. 7. 517 b, Arrian, Epict. 2. 20. 4, and comp. 
Schulthess, Theol. Annal. 1829, p. 976. 

3 Comp. EUendt, Arr. Al. I. 253, Niebuhr, Index to Dexippus, Eunapius, and 

* On the substitution of a substantive for a predicative adjective, on rhe- 
torical grounds (as in 2 C. iii. 9, s« h lutKovla, r?^; Karaxpiffiu; ^o£,a), 
see § 58. 

296 ADJECTIVES. [part III. 

struction, expressed by a substantive. Yet the N. T. is by no 
means poor in adjectives. It even contains no inconsiderable 
number which were unknown to the (earlier) Greeks, — some of 
these coined by the Apostles themselves: as iTTiovcrLo<^,crapKiK6'^, 
iTvevfJuaTLKO'^, irapel^aKTO';, irvptvo^;, aKaTdKpLTO<;, aKpo^ycövialo^, 
av€7raLa'^vvTo<;, avroKaraKpLTo^;, d'^€Lpo7roLr]TO<;, ßpooaLfJLO<;, iiri- 
7roOi]To<;, evirepLCTTaTOf;, ladyyeXo';, KaT€LB(DXo<;, KvpiaKo^;, raireL- 
vo(f)p(i)v} etc. 

In this case — 

a. Sometimes the principal substantive stands in the geni- 
tive : 1 Tim. vi. 17, p^rj rfkinfcevai eirl irXovrov dSijXoTrjri, 
not to trust on uncertainty of riches, i. e., on ric^hes which are 
uncertain ; Rom. vi. 4, 'iva Tjpjel^ iv KatvorrjTL fw?}? irepLTrar^- 
cr(ofjL6v' vii. 6. This mode of expression, however, is not arbi- 
trary, but is chosen for the purpose of giving more prominence 
to the main idea, which, if expressed by means of an adjective, 
would be thrown more into the background. Hence it belongs 
to rhetoric, not to grammar. Compare Zumpt, Lat. Gr. § 672 ; 
and for examples from Greek authors see Held, Plut. Timol. 
p. 368. 

Strictly speaking, those passages only should be brought in 
here in which a substantive governing a genitive is connected with 
a verb which, from the nature of the case, suits the genitive rather 
than the governing noun, and consequently points out the genitive 
as the principal word ; as in " ingemuit corvi stupor,'' or 1 Tim. /. c, 
cA-TTi^civ cTTt ttXovtov aSrjXoTYjTi. Such passages as Col. ii. 5, yOAcVwi/ 
TO crTCpeiofxa r^s Trto-rews* 2 C. iv. 7, Lva t] vTrepßoXr) rrjq Svvdp€w<; 
rj Tov 0€ov' G. il. 14, opOoTToSecv Trpos rrjv aXrjOeiav tov evayyeXiov' 
ii. 5, also 2 Th. ii. 11, irepTreL ivepyetav 7rXdvr]<;, must decidedly be 
excluded from this class. ^ In H. ix. 2, y TrpoOeai^ twv dproiv means 

■•[On trupxiKos see above, p. 122. Of the remaining words, ßp&xrifios (Lev. 
xix. 23) occurs in iEsch. Prom. 479 ; Tvp4vos (V.z. xxviii. 14, 16, Ecclus. xlviii, 9) 
and Tvivfiocrixos are used by Aristotle ; Tetpiisafcros (Prol. Sir. -rap. -rpoXoyos) 
by 8trabo (17. p. 794); äv£?ra/ö-;^£/vTöj by Josephus {Antt. 18. 7. 1); TUTitvi- 
<ppuv (Pr. xxix. 23) by Plutarch {Mor. p. 336. e) ; uxpoyuviaios occurs in ]s. 
xxviii. 16.] 

^ Fritjc.sche {Row.. T. 367 sq,)has raised objections against this distinction ; he 
seems however to have misunderstood it. In the jjassages which belong to the 
second class the language is merely logical ; in those of the first class, rhetorical. 
"When wc say to live accordin// to the truth of the Oospel, we use the proper 
and natural expression, — the truth of th(! (ios])el is the rule of the life. But 
when we say corvi Htwpor ingemuit, the language is figurative, just as in Hin 
blood called for vengeance. Cic. Nat. D. 2. 50. 127 ['* multai etiam (bestiffi) 
insectantes odoris intolerabili fa'ditat(! dcpellunt "] belongs to the second class, 
and/cet/o odort would be a less accurate expression. 


the laijtng out of ilui loaves ; ami in 1 P. i. 2, as a glance at the con- 
text will show, dytao-/xo9 Trveij/xaTo? is not synonymous with 7ri/€v/Aa 
dytor. The phrase \afxßav(.LV ttjv tVayycXttti/ tov Trvei'/xaro?, A. il. 33, 
G. iii. 14, signifies to receive, attain, the promise of the Spirit; this 
takes place when we receive the promised blessing itself (Ko/xt^co-öat 
rrjv cVayycAtai/), when promise passes into fulfilment. 

I). Much more frequently, that substantive which expresses 
the notion of a (mostly non-material) quality stands in the 
genitive : L. iv. 22, Xojoo rf;? '^dpLTo<;' xvi. S, olkov6/io<; t?)? clBl- 
Kla<;' xviii. 6, KpiT7]<^ t% ahiKia^;' Col. i. 13, u/o? t?}? dyd7rr)<;' 
Eev. xiii. 3, y TrXrjjrj rod Oavdrov mortal ivound, Horn. i. 26, 
irddrj drip^lar 2 P. ii. 1Ü, Ja. i. 25, H. i. 3.^ Such expressions 
in prose follow the Hebrew idiom (which employs this con- 
struction not merely through poverty in adjectives,^ but also 
through the vividness of phraseology which belongs to oriental 
languages) ; in the more elevated style, however, there are 
examples in Greek authors."^ In later Avriters phrases of this 
kind find their way into plain prose (Eustath. Gramm, p. 478). 

If the genitive of a personal pronoun is annexed, it is joined 
in translation with the notion expressed by the combination of the 
two substantives : H. i. 3 tw pruxan Trj<; Suva/^coos avTov, through 
His powerful icord, Col. i. 13, Rev. iii. 10, xiii. 3. It is usual to 
go farther still, and maintain ^ that, when two substantives are so 
combined as to form a single principal notion, the demonstrative 
pronoun, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom (?), agrees gramma- 
tically w4th the governed noun.^ Thus in A. v. 20, ra pr/aara rJ}? 

^ [It may perhaps be doubted whether this passage (with most of those in 
which the genitive has some qualifying word, — "the expression thus losing 
its general character," A. Buttm.) should come in here : see Ellicott in loc. On 
H. i. 3 see Alford.] 

- But in 2 Th. i. 7, ayyiXoi Iwcifiiu? alrov msaus angels of His power, i.e., 
angels who serve His power. 

3 Ewald p. 572. [Lehrh. p. 533.] 

4 See Erfurdt, Soph. (Ed. R. 826, compare Pfochen, Diatr. p. 29 ; but the 
examples cited by Georgi ( Vind. p. 214 sqq.) are almost all useless. — The geni- 
tive of the material does not come in here : xlSov y-pios, for example, was to the 
Greeks exactly equivalent to our ram of stone, and the opinion that an adjective 
should have been used rests merely on a comparison of the Latin idiom. Like- 
wise offfjLY, ivuVitti, Ph. iv. 18 (compare Aristot. Rhet. 1. 11. 9), is probably odour 
of fragrance, and is not really put for ö<r^^ iluln?. That 1 C. x. 16, ro -jrorripiov 
rr,5 ivXey'toci, and Rom. i. 4, <rvivfjLa. ayiuffvvrii, are not to be explained by the 
above rule, is now admitted by the best commentators. Still more unsatis- 
factory examples are given b}'- Glass, 1. 26 sq. [The genitive in offi^h iluVica is 
taken below (§ 65. 2) as a genitive of quality, not of material.] 

* See e.g. Vorst, Hebraism, p. 570 sq., Storr, Ohserv. p. 234 sq. 

* In proofthat this is a Hebraism, Ezr. ix. 14, n^XH nU^Wn ^0^3. is quoted : 
but here it is not at all necessary to connect npK with the second substantive. 

298 ADJECTIVES, [part III. 

^wy]<; TavTrj<;, TavTr]<s would stand for ravTa, these wovds of life; 
xiii. 2G, 6 Aoyos r»7S o-wTTyptas ravrr;?, this doctrine of salvation; 
Rom. vii. 24, Ik tov o-ojfjLaro^ Tov OavaTov tovtovj compare the 
Peshito IZoiD? Ijoi 1r*^j-^ ^ 

But this canon (which even Bengel follows) is purely imaginary. 
In Eom. vii. 24, Paul himself may have joined tovtov with o-w/xaros, 
but if the pronoun is connected with Oavarov it is not without 
meaning : the apostle had already spoken repeatedly of OdvaTo^ 
(ver. 10 sqq.), and therefore could refer back to it : see De Wette 
in loc. In A. xiii. 26 also, as the aoiTrjp 'It^o-oGs had been mentioned 
in ver. 23, 6 Aoyos r^s o-cxiTr]pLa<s ravTYjs is the word of this sal- 
vation (effected through Christ). In A. v. 20 the pronoun refers to 
the salvation which the apostles were at that very time proclaiming. 
Even the Hebrew combination, as iapD ^WijJ Is. ii. 20, or ^K^lp }DK> 
Ps. Ixxxix. 21 — which is required by rule, but which is also much 
more natural, since the two words are really one — is not thus 
literally rendered by the LXX (compare Is. I. c. ra ßSeXvyfjiara 
avTov TOL dpyvpa' Dt. L 41, ra (tkcvt] rd TroXe/JUKa avrov- Ps. Ixxxix. 
/. c, iv iXato) dyiiü) ; and one really cannot see what could lead such 
writers as Luke and Paul to use so abnormal a construction in 
sentences so simple.^ 

Eem. 1. Some have found in L. xi. 33, ek kpvtttyjv TiOrjaL, an 
imitation of the Hebrew use ^ of the feminine adjective to express 
the neuter. Absurd ! KpvTTTrj was already in use as a substantive, 
with the meaning covered place or way, sulterranean receptacle, vault 
(Athen. 5. 205), and suits this passage well. On the other hand, 
Mt. xxi. 42 (Mk. xii. 11), Trapa Kvpiov iyevero avrr] (rovro), koI 
iarl OavfxadTrj (öau/xacrroV), is a quotation from Ps. cxvii. 23 : yet 
even the LXX may have used the feminine here in reference to 
KecfiaXy] ywvias (Wolf, Cur. ad h. I.). 

Rem. 2. We have also to mention another Hebraistic ^ usage, 
— a periphrasis (as it is said) for certain concrete adjectives when 
used as substantives, formed by means of vlos or tIkvov followed 
by a genitive of the abstract noun : viol dTretöems E. ii. 2, i.e. dis- 
ohedient ones, viol (Jhhto^ L. xvi. 8, Jo. xii. 36, jUva <^wtos E. v. 8, 
T€Kva 6pyYj<i E. ii. 3, T€Kva v7raKorj<; 1 P. i. 14, rcKva Karapa? 2 P. 
ii. 14, 6 vl6<; Trj<s aTTwAetas 2 Th. ii. 3. Every one must feel that 
these combinations are not mere idle periphrases, but that they 
express the idea with more vividness and therefore with more force. 
This mode of expression is to be traced to the more lively imagi- 

1 The examples quoted from Greek authors by Georgi (Vind. p. 204 sqq.) 
and Munthc {Obs. Act. v. 20) lose all plausibility when more closely examined 
(Fritz. Mark, Exe. 1. p. 771 sq.)- 

2 Gesen. Lehr(/eh. p. 661, Vorst, Hebraism, p. 282 sq. [Gesen. Heb. Gr. 
p. 180 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Jlcb. Or. I. 244.] 

3 Vorst, Hebraism, p. 467 sqq. [Kalisch I. 262.] 


nation of the orientals, by which the most intimate connexion (de- 
rivation from and dependence on) — even when the reference is to 
wdiat is not material — is viewed nnder the image of the relation of 
son or child to parent (Ecclus. iv. 11). Hence children^ of disobe- 
dience are those Avho belong to aTViiOcLa as a child to his mother, 
disobedience having become their nature, their predominant dis- 
position : compare in Hebrew Dt. iii. 18, xxv. 2, 2 S. xii. 5. Ps. 
Ixxxix. 23. 

(The expressions TratScs larpdv, Svo-Trivwi/ 1 — used especially by 
Lucian — grammatically rather resemble viol twv dvOpwiroyv ; neither 
Schwarz nor Georgi has been able to find in Greek prose an example 
of Trat? or T€Kvov combined with an abstract noun, as in the above 
quotations. From ecclesiastical -vvriters compare Epiphan. 0pp. I. 
380 b, ot viol T^9 d\r}6Lv^<; 7nVT€W9. In German [or English] we 
cannot really expect to find parallels, for such a phrase as " child 
of death " is derived from Bible language ; in the more elevated style, 
however, we sometimes meet with similar phrases, as for instance, 
" every man is a child of his age." ^ Of a different kind is 2 Th. 
ii. 3, 6 a.vOpo)7ro<; rrj^ d/xapna?, — not equivalent to 6 dfiapTwXos — the 
man of sin, i.e., the man who pre-eminently belongs to sin, the 
representative of sin, in wdiom sin is personified.) 

Rem. 3. E. vi. 12, ra TrvevfiaTLKo. t^? Trovrjptas, is peculiar. 
The Greek idiom with which this is compared by the commenta- 
tors,3 TrapOevLKOL for TvapOivoi (Lobeck, Paral. p. 305 sq.), was in 
the better ages merely poetical, and besides is not entirely analo- 
gous. In the Byzantines, however, we find e.g. 17 ittttik^ for rj 
LTTTrog (Ducas p. 18). Ta Satju-oVia also, which was originally an 
adjective, and w^hich is used as a substantive in later Greek by the 
side of 8at/tov€s, presents on the whole a true analogy ; a genitive in 
combination with this word, as ra 8ai/u,oi/ia rov p.ipos, would present 
no difficulty. In this passage the abstract would be used designedly, 
in antithesis to Trpo? al/xa koX ordpKa, — " not against material, but 
against spiritual opposing powers, ye have to maintain your struggle." 
If however Trvcv/xartKa be not taken as equivalent to Trvevfxara, the 
only alternative will be to regard it as a collective plural, — similar 
in kind to ra Xrjo-rpLKo. Poly sen. 5. 14 (robber-hordes, from to XycrrpLKov 
robbery, Lob. Phryn. p. 242), and to translate, the sjnriinal com- 
munities of vAckedness, the evil spirit-powers. See Meyer in Ice. 

1 Schsef. Dion. 313. 

2 See on the whole Steiger on 1 P. i. 14, Gurlitt in Stud. u. Krit. 1829, 
p. 728 sq. 

3 See Koppe in loc, Fischer, Welkr III. i. 295. 


Section XXXV. 


1. The comparative degree is usually expressed in the N. T. 
in exactly the same manner as in classical Greek, viz. by what 
is known as the comparative form of the adjective, — the thing 
with which the comparison is made being placed in the genitive, 
or (especially where it is a complete sentence) preceded by the 
connective 7;.^ See Jo. iv. 12, ^7) av fiel^cov eZ rod irarpo^ 
'ntiMv ; i. 51, xiii. 16, Mk. xii. 31, 1 C. i. 25, 1 Tim. v. 8, H. xi. 
26 ; Jo. iv. 1, '7r\eiova<; fiaOrjra^ iroiel 7) ^I(odvv'rj<;' 1 C. xiv. 5, 
1 Jo. iv. 4; Rom. xiii. 11, iyjvrepov rj/iMV y acoTTjpta rj ore 
iTTLo-Tevaafjiev' 2 P. ii. 21, 1 C. ix. 15 (Klotz, Devar. p. 583). 
After ifkelcov and iXdrrcov, rj is often omitted when a numeral 
follows (Matth. 455. Eem. 4, Jelf 780, Don. p. 393) : A. xxiv. 
11, ov TrXe/oi;? elai fxoi rj/jbepat BeKaSvo' iv. 22, xxiii. 13, 
XXV. 6 ^ (compare Ter. Ad. 2. 1. 46, plus quingentos colaphos 
infregit mihi)."* In L. ix. 13 rJ is inserted. 

It is sometimes doubtful whether a genitive that follows a com- 
parative contains the second member of the comparison, or is in- 
dependent of the comparison. In H. iii. 3, TrAetWa rt/x^v e'xet tov 
oLKov K.T.X., we must probably consider olkov as dependent on 
TrXetova ; but in 1 C. xiii. 13, fxet^wv TovToiv rj ayair-q may mean 
greater (the greatest) of (among) these, see no. 3. Compare also 

1 C. xii. 23, L. vii. 42 (Lucian, iFug. 6). 

The comparative is sometimes strengthened by ixoXXov,^ as in 

2 C. vii. 13, 7repL(T(roT€po)<; /xaXXov (Plat. Legg. G. 781 a), Ph. i. 23, 
7roXXf2 /xaXXov Kpetacrov {very far better), — so in reference to another 
comparative, Mk. vii. 36, oaov avrots Stco-reAAcro, avrol fxaXXov 
TTipiaaoTepov eKrjpvacrov (see Fritz. Mi loc.^) : also by cTt, H. vii. 15, 

* Compare, in general, G. W. Nitzsch, De comparaiivis Grcecce linguce modiSf 
in his edition of Plato's Ion (Lips. 1822). 

* In such cases the LXX even use the genitive of the infinitive (Gen. iv. 13). 
^ [Compare p. 744 sq. In most of tlie N. T. exam})les the comparative is 

followed by an indeclinable word : A. Buttmann quotes Mt. xxvi. 53, where we 
.should proljably read tXiIu luhiKo. Xfyiuvoc;. Com])are p. 313 (£Tav&)),j 

* Sec Lob. p. 410 sq., Held, I'lut. Mm. P. p. 261. 

^ MaXXov is not joined to the superlative. In 2 C. xii. 9, »j'^/o-ra ovv /näXXov 
ita.vx^ri( it Tctlf uffhviixi; fjiov, this word belongs to the whole clause Yiliffra. 
x-aux,. Ä. T.X., rather therefore vnlL J very (/la/lh/ (jlory, i.e., rather than, repining 
at the a.a6i)iiia.i (vcr, 8 s(i.), bc^scecdi God that I may be freed from them: 
iiha-To, indicates the degree of the, f/a.XXov marks the antithesis to 
what has gone before. 

* [Fritzsche renders this, quantum autem ipse iia imperabat (sell, ne portenti 


TrepLcraroTcpov hi Kartt8»;Aoi/ [alill iiioir manifest), Vh. i. 9 ; and lastly 
by TToAi.', 2 C. viii. 22, ttoAu a-n-ovSatoTepov. All this is very common 
in Greek writers (Kriig. p. 91 sq.). On fiaXkov see Wyttenb. Plut. 
I. 238, Ast, Plat. Phcedr. p. 395, Legrj. p. 44, Boisson. Aristosn. 
p. 430 sqq. (in Latin compare Cic. Pis. 14, mihi .... quavis fuga 
]7otius quam ulla provincia esset optatior) ; as to en, compare Plat. 
Pol. 298 e, Xen. Mem. 1. 5. G, Ct/r. 5. 4. 20, An. 1. 9. 10; as to 
TToAv, Xen. Mem. 2. 10. 2, Lucian, jT/z/l 50 : sometimes In and ttoAv 
are combined, Xen. 71/m. 2. 1. 27, Cyr. 1. G. 17, An. 7. 5. 15. 
(Don. p. 392, Jelf 784, 2.) 

So also when the comparative is followed by prepositions which 
denote excess — as in L. xvi. 8, <j>povip.uiT€.pov virlp Tov<i vtovs tov cf>o)T6<i- 
H. iv. 12, Jud. xi. 25, xv. 2, xviii. 2G : H. ix. 23, KpetTToa-L Ova-Lai^ 
T-apa ravVa?- i. 4, iii. 3, xi. 4, xii. 24, L. iii. 13 — the design is to 
obtain greater expressiveness. For irapd compare Thuc. 1. 23, 
TTVKvorepov rrapa to. Ik tov irpXv )(p6vov ixvrjfxovevofxeva' Dio C. 38. 97.^ 
See Herm. Fig. p. 862 (Don. p. 393, Jelf G37). 

2. Instead of the comparative form the positive is occasionally 
used : — 

a. With fjLoXXov, — sometimes because the comparative form 
appeared unpleasing, sometimes from the wish to write more 
expressively (Kriig. p. 91) : A. xx. 35, fjuaKcipLov iarc fjLoXXov 
hihovai rj Xafißdveiv 1 C. xii. 22, G. iv. 27.^ 

h. Followed by a preposition w^hich conveys the notion of 
excess, as in Philostr. Ap. 3. 19, irapa iravra^ 'A'^aiov^; /jL6ya<;. 
So in L. xiii. 2, äfiaprcoXol irapa Travra^; tov<; TaXiXalovi 
(though it is true d/iapTcoXof; has no comparative), H. iii. 3.^ 
In the LXX irapd and virep are frequently thus used : Ex. 
xviii. 11, Num. xii. 3, Hag. ii. 9, Eccl. iv. 9, ix. 4, 1 S. i. 8. 

c. Followed by rJ : Aristot. FrohL 29. 6, irapaKaraOiJKrjv 
alcT'^pov aTroareprjaac [xiKpov rj ttoXv havetcrdfievov (Held, Plut. 
Timol. 317 sq.). This is rare on the whole, but the kindred 
expression ßovXopiai or 6eX(D rj (iiiallc) had become a common 
formula ; see Her. 3. 40, Polyb. 13. 5. 3, Plut. Alex. 7, Sulla 3. 

famam disseminarent), magis impensius prcedicabant, hoc est, niagis impensius 
rem divulgabant, ad quern modum valde Us imperabat.] 

^ [This use of Tocpa. is common in modern Greek (Mullach, Vulg. p. 333, 
J. Donalds. Gr. p. 34). — As to the meaning of the preposition, compare Kiddell, 
Plat. Ap. p. 181.] 

^ [Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford take TrokXa. //.xXkov as '* not simply equivalent 
to TXitovcc ii, but implying that both should have many, but the desolate one 
7)iore than the other" (Ellicott in loc). In the other examples also f^akko* is 
rather connected with the sentence than directly with the adjective.] 

^ [In H. iii. 3 Tapa, follows a comparative, not a positive. ] 


The simplest explanation of this is, that (from its use with 
comparatives) i] had come to be regarded as a particle of pro- 
portion, which presupposed or in some measure brought with 
it a comparison : ■"■ compare Plaut. Bud. 4. 4. 70, tacita bona 
est mulier semper quam loquens, and Tac. A7in. 3. 17. 

In the N. T. we find — not only OeXco rj (1 C. xiv. 19) and 
Xv(TLTe\el 7], satms est quam (L. xvii. 2, Tob. iii. 6), but also — 
an extension of this construction on other sides (as in Greek 
writers, see Lys. Affect. Tyr. 1) : L. xv. 7, %«/?« earai iirt ivl 
äfiapTco\a> /jberavoovvrt rj iirl ivevrjKovraevvea S/./catot9, greater 
joy than etc. Compare Num. xii. 6, iax^et ovto^ 17 rj/jLec^. 
With an adjective there is only one example of this kind, but 
in both records : Mt. xviii. 8, koXov aol io-rcv el^ieXOelv eh ttjv 
^(orjv '^(oXov ■^ KvWov, rj Buo ')(elpa<i . . . e^ovra ßXrjdrjvaL k.t.X., 
Mk. ix. 43. 45. The LXX use this construction frequently, 
as Gen. xlix. 12, Hos. ii. 7, Jon. iv. 3, 8, Lam. iv. 9, Tob. 
xii. 8, Ecclus. xxii. 1 5 ; it was naturally suggested to them 
by the Hebrew, in which the comparison is made to follow the 
adjective by means of the preposition |p. 

From Greek writers, compare with L. xvii. 2, ^ijv arapd'^^co«; 
(TVfjb(p6pec Tj TO Tpv(j)äv K.T.X. ^sop. 121 (ed. De Furia), Tob. 
vi. 13 ; and as regards adjective and adverb, Thuc. 6. 21, ala'^^^pov 
ßiao-divra^i äireXOelv rj varepov eTn/jbeTaTrifjiTrecrOac' Plut. Pelop. 4 
TOVTOv; av 6p6a)<; Kal St/cato)? 7rpo<;ayop6i)(T€t<; avvdp')(^ovTa<; rj 
iKeluovr ^sop. 134 (De Fur.).^ (Don. p. 392, Jelf 779. Ohs. 3.) 

In L. xviii. 14, with the reading Koriß-q ovros SeSt/catw/^iei/os .... 
rj €K€2vo<;, there would, in view of the above usage, be no difficulty 
whatever (compare Gen. xxxviii. 26, ScStKatwrat ©a/xap ^ eyw), 
except that a comparison is not very suitable here : all the better 
MSS. however have rj ydp,'^ which is without example. Yet the 
sentence might perhaps be thus resolved, on Hermann's theory (fol- 
lowed by Bornemann in loc.) : this man went justified . ... or was 
it then the other (who went etc.) 1 The yap would be added, as it 
is added to other interrogative words (and also to §, as Xen. Ciß\ 

1 The explanation given by Hermann ( Vvj. p. 884) and Schsefer {Ind. JEsop. 
p. 138) is more artificial, compare Held, Plut. Tim. p. 317: the older gram- 
marians supi)lied ^äxxov with the positive. [Hermann, taking aw /or^e as the 
proper meaning of Ä', tlius renders Hom. 11. 1. 117, ßovXofA lyu Xaov croov 'i/u,fiivui, 
ri a'Tokiffoon, voLo pojmlum salvum esse : an per Ire volo ?] 

^ Sec D'Orville, Charit, p. 538, lioissonadc, Marin. Prod. p. 78, Kypke I. 89, 
II. 228, and Nitzsch I. c. p. 71. [Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 183.] 

3 See also Matthaii (small edition) in loc. 


8. 3. 40, Soph. EJcdr. 1212 sq.), to strengthen the question. Some 
MSS. have r^-n-cp (which in Jo. xii. 43 is not difi'erent from rj) ; but 
it is more probable that this was an emendation of i} yap, than that 
17 yap was derived from it, as the original reading. Lachmann, 
Tischend, (ed. 1), and Meyer read Trap' Ikuvov,'^ which would present 
no difficulty of any kind {justified past — passing over — the other). 

3. The comparative contrasts an object with but one standard 
of comparison, whether this standard be a single individual, or a 
united whole : Jo. xiii. 16, ovk ecrrt Bov\o<; /ul€l^(ov tov Kvplov 
V. 20, fiel^ova tovtccv Seilet avrw epya' x. 29. If the appended 
genitive denotes all things of the same class (Mk. iv. 31, fiiKpo- 
T6po<; irdvTwv rcov aTrepfMarcov ver. 32, L. xxi. 3, 1 C. xv. 19, 
E. iii. 8), we must naturally take it as not including the object 
compared, less than all (other) seeds. In such a case the com- 
parative may also be rendered by a superlative, the least of all 
seeds. This mode of expression is also found in Greek writers : 
Demosth. Fals. Leg. 246 b, itolvtcov tcov aWayv %eipö) ttoXlttjv' 
Athen. 3. 247, iravTcov Kapiroyv o}(j)e\i/jb(i)Tepa' Dio Chr. 3. 39, 
ciTTavTcov iTiOavoiTepo'^. See Jacobs, Antliol. III. 247. 

In 1 C. xiii. 1 3, /xct^wv tovtcdv 17 ay dirq, the comparative is not put 
for the superlative. We must render, greater of (among) these is love ; 
the comparative being chosen because love is contrasted with faith 
and hope as one category. 

4. The comparative is not unfrequently used without any 
express mention of the standard of comparison ^ (Matth. 457 d, 
Krug. p. 90). In most cases this may easily be perceived from 
the context, as in Jo. xix. 11, A. xviii. 20, 1 C. vii. 38 (compare 
ver. 36 sq.), xii. 31, H. ii. 1, vi. 16, ix. 11, Ja. iii. 1, 1 P. iii. 7 ; 
or the phrase is one in familiar use, as ol TrXeioz^e? the majority 
(in an assemblage), A. xix. 32, xxvii. 12, 1 C. ix. 19, al. Some- 
times, however, the attentive reader finds the meaning of the 
comparative less obvious, and here earlier exegesis considered 
the comparative to be used for the positive ^ or the superlative : 

^ [This reading, supported by the authority of t{, B, D, L, is accepted by 
Bleek, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and others. ] 

2 Reiz, De Accent. Inclin. p. 54, Ast, Plat. Polit. pp. 418, 538, Stallb. Phileb. 
p. 120, Rep. 1. 238. [Don. p. 392, Jelf 784, Webster, Syntax p. 58, Green, Gr. 
p. 110.] 

^ In Greek authors also the comparative is not used for the positive in such 
sentences as Lucian, Epp. Sat. 3. 32, to ^J/o-tov xa.) ffv/^ToriKUTtpov xui iffoTt/u,lx 

X.T.X., OT Bis Accus. 11, e'f «v iJLiyaXo(puvoTipos ttlruv riv xec) ^pxavTipos' Her. 

2. 46, al. (Reusing. Plut. Educ. p. 3). Compare also Heiuichen, Euseb. Hist. 
Ec. 1. 210 sq., Herrn. Luc. Conscrih. Hint. p. 284. 


2 Tim. i. 18, ßeXnov aij <yt,vcoaKeL<;, tJwu hnowest it better, i.e. 
better than I (Lucian, Pise. 20, aixeivov av olaOa ravra) ; A. 
XXV. 10, o)? Kal av icaXkiov i7nyLV(o(TK6L<;, better than thou 
vnshest to appear to know (according to the supposition of ver. 9, 
that he is guilty) ; 2 C. viii. 17, rrjv fjuev irapdickrjcnv iSe^aro, 
(jirovhaLOTepo'^ 8e virdp-^cov, more zealous, i.e. than to have re- 
quired an exhortation ; vii. 7, w?Te /xe fiaWoi' '^aprjvac more than 
for the (mere) arrival of Titus (ver. 6), compare ver. 13 ; A. 
xxvii. 1 3, aaaov TrapekeyovTo rrjv Kptjrrjv, nearer than had before 
been possible (ver. 8) ; Ph. ii. 28, aTrovSacorepcof; eTre/xyjra avrov, 
i.e. than I should have done, if you had not been made uneasy 
by the news of his illness (ver. 26) ; i. 12, rd Kar ifjue fidXKov 
eh TrpoKoirr^v rod evayyeXlov eXrjkvOev, more (rather) to the 
furtherance than, as was to be feared, to the hindrance ; Jo. xiii. 
27, o TToteU 7roL7]crov Taj^uov, more quicldy than thou appearest 
to intend to do, hasten the execution of the design, see Lücke 
in loc. Compare Senec. Agam. 965, citius interea mihi edissere, 
nbi sit gnatus ; also ocms, Virg. uEn. 8. 554. In 1 Tim. iii. 14, 
iXirl^cüv e\6elv irpo<; ae jd'^iov, most render rd'^^cov as a positive 
(Lachmann's reading, iv rd'^ei, is a correction) ; some as if it 
were co? TayiaTa. The words mean : this I write to thee, hoping 
(although I hope) to come to thee more quickly, sooner, than 
thou wilt need these instructions. The reason why he writes, 
notwithstanding this hope, is given by the words edv Se ßpaSvvco 
K.T.X. ; compare ver. 15. H. xiii. 19 is, that I may be restored 
to you sooner (than I should be without your prayers ^) ; xiii. 
23, if he come sooner (than the date of my departure) ; Eom. 
XV. 15, ToXfjLTjpcrepov eypaylra vjjllv, onore boldly (more freely), 
i.e. than was necessary considering your Christian excellence 
(ver. 14). On Mk. ix. 42 see Fritz, in loc :^ A. xviii. 26 does 
not require explanation. In 1 C. vii. 38, the relation between 
the positive /caXw? Trocel and the comparative Kpelcraov iroiel is 
clear from ver. 30 sq. TJepLo-aoTepo)^ also, so common in Paul, 
is never used without a comparison. In 2 C. i. 12, ii. 4, vii. 13, 
xi. 23, Ph. i. 14, G. i. 14, H. ii. 1, vi. 17, this comparison is ob- 

^ Böhme, who in liis translation gives correctly the meaning of this passage, 
yet maintains in his ooninientary : non est comparat. stricte intcUbjendus. 

^ [KaXov itTTiv at/rJ fx-xXXoy : " scil. quavi bi vivcret et discipulos suos cor^ 
rumperet.''^ (Fritzsche.)J 


vious at once. In 1 Tli. ii. 17, Trepio-aorepw^; ia-TTovSaaafxev to 
TTpo'iüJ'Trov v/jlü)v IBecu K.r.X., the explanation of the 'more ahun- 
dantljj^ is probably given by the preceding words diropcpavLadev- 
Te9 acp^ vjjbwv 7rpo<; Kaipov copa<;. The loss of their personal 
intercourse for a time (which Paul calls a state of orphanhood) 
had made his lon^inc»- cjreater than it would have been if he had 
never been thus united with them. In 2 P. i. 19 the meaning 
of ßeßaiorepov is a question for hermeneutics to determine : the 
fluctuation of opinion in even the most recent commentaries 
shows how obscure the reference is. In 2 P. ii. 11, however, it 
can scarcely be doubted that after yitetfoz/e? we must supply " than 
those ToX/irjral avdaSeU.'' On E. iv. 9 see Meyer.^ 

A. xvii. 21, Xeyeuy tl kol aKovcLv Kaivorepov, is peculiarly charac- 
teristic. The comparative indicates that they wish to hear some- 
thing newer (than that which was just passing current as neiv), and 
might seem to portray vividly the voracious appetite which the 
Athenians in particular had for news. The comparative however 
(usually v€o}Tepov) was regularly used by the Greeks in the question 
v:hat news ? They did not speak of what was " new " simply and ab- 
solutely (the positive), but contrasted it with what had been new up 
to the time of asking. See Her. 1. 27, Eurip. Oresf. 1327, Aristoph. 
Av. 254, Theophr. Ch. 8. 1, Lucian, Asi?i. 41, Diod. S. Exc. Vat, 
p. 24, Plat. Protag. 310 b, and Euthyphr. c. 1 (see Stallbaum in 

In Mt. xviii. 1 (Mk. ix. 34, L. ix. 46, xxii. 24), twv oAAwi/ at 
once suggests itself as the complement : /xeyto-ro? would have implied 
three or four degrees of rank amongst the Twelve.^ So probably 
in Mt. xi. 11, 6 Se ixcKporepos iv tj} ßacrLk^ta r. ovp., the meaning 
is, 6 p.iKp. (tC)v) oAAodv, — the comparative being chosen, it would 
seem, as corresponding to the preceding /xec^iDv : compare Diog. L. 
G. 5, epwrr^öets tl fiaKapiwrepov iv avOpwTrot'?, e«/)^» evTV)(OvvTa 
a.TToOave'iv.'^ Others supply ^loidwov Tov ßaTTTLOTTOv after fxiKpore- 
pos : see on the whole Meyer in loc. Likewise in A. xvii. 22, Kara, 
TrdvTa (Ls Seio-iS at p.ov€(TT€pov^ v/xag Oeoipu), it does not appear 
that we can join w? to the comparative as an intensive particle ; we 
must translate, In all resjjects ("at every step," as it were) / look 
on you as more religious men (than others are, seil. dX\o)v). This 
was, as is well known, the character of the Athenians : see the com- 
mentators. The word Ocwpelv was designedly chosen, compare ver. 

^ ["Because the time of separation was so short," Liineniann, Alford : be- 
cause "the separation was -^rpuruTu oh Kitplla,'' Ellicott, al.] 
^ [Winer's view of this passage is given in § 59. 8. a.] 
^ Ramshorn, Lat. Gr. p. 316. 
* Bauer, Glossar. Theodoret. 455, Boisson. Philostr. 491. 



23 ; and Ocoip^tv a>5, though not a common expression, can hardly be 
considered strange. 

Rem. 1. It has been maintained that, when TrpojTo? is used 
where two objects only are spoken of (as in Rev. xxi. 1, elSov ov- 

pavov Kaivov 6 yap Trpwros ovpavos k.t.A., prius CSßlum, H. 

X. 9, avaipec to irpoiTov, Iva to hcvTi.pov arrjcrri' Mt. XXI. 36, «xTre- 
arciXev oAAovs 8oi;Aous TrAetWas rwv Trpwrcov A. i. 1, 1 C. xiv. 
30), it stands for the comparative Trporepo^. But this is only true 
from the standpoint of Latin usage ; for in Greek it is quite common 
to find TrpcüTos, 8evrepo5, not Trpdrepo?, {Jcrrcpos, even where there 
is a distinct reference to two, and two only ;i as indeed in German 
[and English] former and latter belong rather to the written than 
to the spoken language. Even Trpwro? with a genitive — as in Jo. 
i. 15, 30, TrpwTos }xov (compare ^lian, Anim. 8. 12), and (the adverb) 
x,v. 18, TTpuiTov v[xu)v — is, strictly speaking, not the same as prior 
me, prius vobis. The superlative simply includes the comparative, 
in accordance with Hermann's remark,^ " Grsecos ibi superlativum 
pro comparativo dicere, ubi hsec duo simul indicare volunt, et mains 
quid esse alio et omnino maximum."^ Compare also Fritz. Bom, 
II. 421, note. 

In L. ii. 2,^ avrr] rj a7roypa(j>r] irpoiTq eyeVero TTyc/xovcvovros rijs Svpias 
'Kvp-qviov, even recent commentators, taking Trpwrr; for Trporipa, have 
maintained that the genitives r)y€jxov€vovTo<s k.t.X. are dependent 
on this comparative, it took place earlier than (before) Quirinius 
was governor. But this is quite erroneous. If such were Luke's 
meaning, his language would be not only ambiguous (for the closest 
and most natural rendering is, it took place as the first under the 
(jovernment of Quirinius), but also awkward, if not ungrammatical. 
Huschke ^ has not succeeded in finding an example which is really 
parallel : he merely illustrates the very familiar construction of Trpw- 
Tos with the genitive of a noun. Tholuck's mistake ^ in regarding 
Jer. xxix. 2 (LXX) as parallel is exposed by Fritzsche I. c. 

Rem. 2. Such examples as the following, in which two com- 
])aratives stand in mutual relation, need no comment : Rom. ix. 12, 
o /x€t^ü)i/ Bovkevaa ru) iX.d(raovL (from the LXX), compare 1 C. xii. 22, 
2 C. xii. 15, Ph. i. 23 sq.; or with a word expressing proportion, H. i. 
4, rocrovTOi KpiirrwiV yci/^os ocrw SLa(f>opu)T€pov K€KX7]pov6p,r)K€v ovofia, 
(x. 25). Compare Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 7, Mem. 1. 4. 10, Plat, ylpol. 39 d. 
Of two comparatives connected by ^ (Krug. p. 90, Don. p. 390, 
Jelf 782) there is no example in the N. T. ; but we find positives 

* Compare Jacobs on JEA\a.n, Anim. II. 38. 

2 On Eurip. Med. y». 343 (ed. Elnisley). 

2 [Meyer's view, "first in comparison with me," is simpler, and suits Jo. xv. 
18 better.] 

* [The true reading is probably aSrti a.Tayptt.(pn (without «).] 

^ (Jeher den zur Zeil der Geburt J. Chr. (jehaltenen Cenms (Bresl. 1840). 

* Otauburürdiijk. der evang. Geschichte p. 184. 


with /xuXXov similarly joined in 2 Tim. iii. 4, <f>LXi]SovoL jxaXXov y 

5. In comparative sentences we sometimes lind a part com- 
pared, not with the corresponding part, but with tlie whole 
(Beruh, p. 432, Jelf 781 d): Jo. v. 36, fiaprvplav fiei^ü) tov 
^Icodvvov, a testlmoiiy greater than John, i.e. than that of John ; 
as in Her. 2. 134, Trupa/niSa Kai ovto<; aTreXelireTo iroXKov iXda- 
cro) TOV Trarpo^, i. e. than that of his father, or in Lucian, Salt. 
78, ra 8l ofifxarcov <f>aiif6fi€va irLcnorepa elvau tcjv mtcov Bokcl. 
There is here no proper ellipsis, as the older grammarians thought; 
for if the sentence had been conceived by the Greek as it is by 
us, he would have said r?)? tov 'Icodwov, t^? tov 7raTp6<;} 
We must rather recognise here a condensation of expression 
which was very familiar to the genius of the Greek language, 
and which is not only very common in connexion with compara- 
tives proper,^ but is also met with in other sentences of com- 
parison : ^ see ^66. In Latin, compare Juven. 3. 74, sernio 
promptus et Isa^o torrentior ; Cic. ad Brut. 1. 12, Orat. 1. 44 : 
in Hebrew, Is. Ivi. 5 (1 Esd. iii. 5). Mt. v. 20, also, eav /jlt) ire- 
pLcraevarj v/jlmv t] Scfcatoavvr] ifKelov tmv <ypa/ji/jbaT6(ov Ä:.T.X.,is very 
naturally explained in the same way. Jesus could speak of a 
SiKacoavur) ypafifiaTecov, since their conduct assumedfor itself this 
honourable title, and was by the people regarded and honoured 
as np*!^;. On the other hand, 1 C. i. 25, to ficopov tov 6eov cro- 
(f)coT€pov Tcjv dvOpcoTTcov, mcaus (without the usual — but forced — 
resolution ^), the foolishness of God is wiser than men (are) ; 
i.e., what appears foolishness in God's arrangements is not only 
wisdom, but is even wiser than men, — outshines men in wisdom. 

^ Only when several parallel sentences of this kind follow one another the 
article is omitted in the last : Plat. Gorg. 455 e, h rüv XtfjcUuv i« 
TYii SifiiffTOKXiovs ^ufjLßovXrjS yiyevt, ra. ^' i» rra HipiKXiovs, aXX oIk Ik tuv 
In/ntovpyuv. Compare Siebelis, Pausan. IV. 291. 

^ Herrn. Vig. p. 717, Schaef. Melet. 127, Matth. 453. 

3 Franke, Demosth. p. 90, Weber, Dem. p. 399, Fritz. Conjectan. I. 1 sqq., 
and Mark p. 147. 

* Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt in loc. 

308 the superlative. [part iii. 

Section XXXVI. 

the superlative. 

1. We meet with one instance (in elevated style) in which 
the positive, followed hy a substantive denoting a class, takes 
the place of the superlative: L. i. 42, evXoyrjiievr] crv iv yvvai- 
^Lv, hlcssed (art) tJwu among women. This is in the first in- 
stance a Hebrew construction,^ which properly means : among 
women it is thou (alone) whom we can call hlessed, — the bless- 
ing which others receive cannot come into any account when 
placed beside thine : hence, with rhetorical emphasis, liighly 
hlessed. Similar instances are found in the Greek poets : ^ e.g. 
Eurip. Alcest. 473, o) (plXa yvvai/CMv {m (ptXraTa), see Monk in 
loc, Aristoph. Ban. 1081, w ö-^erXt' ävSpcov, and still more 
Pind. iVe??^. 3. 80 (140), alerb^; odkv^ iv TreravoU. Compare also 
Himer. Oirtt. 15. 4, ol jevvaloi rcov irovwv, and Jacobs, ^1. 
Anim. II. 400. 

The case is different in Mt. xxii. 36, irola ivroXri fjLeydXrj 
iv rS vofjLw, ivhich kind of command is great in the lav; .? so 
that others appear insignificant in comparison, — hence not ex- 
actly the greatest : see Baumg.-Crusius in loc. In L. x. 42 also 
the positive is not put for the superlative ; rr^v ayaOvv /jbepiSct 
i^eXe^aro means, " she has chosen the good part," in reference 
to the kingdom of heaven, — that which alone really deserves the 
name of the good part : Fritzsche is wrong {Conject. I. 19). Mt. 
V. 19, 09 3' av TTOirjar) .... ovto<; fiija^; KXTjOrjaerac, means 
shall he called great, a great one, — not exactly the greatest (as 
opposed to the iXd'^taro^ which precedes). Compare Herrn. 
JEschyl. p. 214. 

2. Of the well-known Hebrew mode of expressing the super- 
lative, ö''^"Tp l^np, ö^l?i^. ^?)!, we find only the following examples 
in the IST. T. : H. ix. 3, ^ (Xeyofiivr)) ayca dyioavf the most 
holy place (which however hardly comes in here, since it had 
already assumed the nature of a standing appellation) ; liev. 

1 Gesen. LeJmj. p. 692. [Kalisch, Jlehr. Gr. I. 268.] 

'^ But the ]);iriill(ils (juotod by Kiihni)! aio not satisfactory. 

•'' [In ('(L 5 Winer writes ccy'tec, as reiiiiiiinc (coni])ar{j § 27. 3, wliere he speaks 
doiibtriilly) : lieic, wliilst joining this word with the leniinine n, he writes olyix, 
as neuter phiral. — Tlie explanation of Soph. EL 849 ji;iven below seems very 
douljtful {se(! .lebb in loc.) : on tlie other examples from Sophocles see Campbell, 
^Sojjh. I. 75.] 


>:i\'. IG, ßaat\€v<; ßaacXecov, /cvpLO<; Kvpldiv, tJoe highest King, 
Lord; 1 Tim. vi. 15. lUit none of these expressions are pure 
Hebraisms : we find a similar repetition of the adjective (used 
substantivally) in the Greek poets, as Soph. Eledr. 849, BecXala 
heikaiwv' (Ed. R. 466, appr^r apprjrcDV PJiil. 65, (Ed. C. 
1238, KaKa KaKoiv. See Bernhardy p. 154, Wex, Antig. I. 3 1 6 
(Jelf 534. Ohs. 2). Such a phrase as ßaaCkev^ ßaaüucov, how- 
ever, is perfectly simple, and is more empliatic than 6 /jueyLarof; 
ßaaiXev^) compare ^Eschyl. Suppl. 524, aWf dvuKrcov, and even 
as a technical expression, Theophan. contin. 127, 387, 6 äp')(^cov 
Tcov dp-^ovTcov} For the similar phrase ol al(bv6<; tmv aloovoiv 
see the passages in the Concordance. 

3. What were formerly adduced as Hebraistic periphrases 
for the superlative ^ are for the most part either 

{a) Figurative expressions, which are found in all languages, 
— and the illustration of which here belonG^s to N. T. rhetoric : or 

(p) Constructions which have nothing to do with the su- 

Examples of («) are H. iv. 12, o \6yo<; rov Oeov t op, co re- 
pot; virep irdaav p^d-^aipav Biarop^ov' Mt. xvii. 20, idv 
€')(r)T6 TTiCTTCv &)? KOKKov a i,v UTT €co<;, the Uast faith; iv. 16, 
/ca6r]p,€voi<; iv ')(^copa koX ama Oavdrov, in the darkest shadow. 
Compare Mt. xxviii. 3, Eev. i. 14, xviii. 5. 

(b) In Col. ii. 19, av^r}cn^ rov Oeov is not glorious, extra- 
ordinary increase, but God's increase, i. e., not merely " increase 
which is pleasing to God," but " increase produced by God " 
(compare 1 C. iii. 6). In 2 C. i. 12, iv ctTrXoTT^rt Kal eiKiKpLvela 
6eov, the meaning is not ''perfect sincerity," but "sincerity whicli 
God effects, produces." In Ja. v. 1 1, reXo^ Kvplov is not ''glorious 
issue," but issue which the Lord has granted " (to Job). So 

^ See also Herrn. uEschyl. p. 230, Georgi, Vind. 327, and Xova Biblioth. 
Luhec. II. Ill sq. 

^ See especially Pasor, Gram. p. 298 sq. The Hebrew idiom fjHä i^HH 

T T 

is also found in later Greek poets ; see Boisson. Nie. Eugen, pp. 134, 383. Com- 
jiare in the LXX «(p'olt^a. <r;po1p% Ex. i. 12, Judith iv. 2 : /*£yaj xa.) (^iya-i oc- 
curs on the Rosetta Inscription, line 19. I\'ot essentially different is the phrase 
{fjt,tKpov) offov offov, H. X. 37, a very very little (Herrn. Vig. p. 726), properly, 
little how very, hov) very! It is found in Greek authors -vvith a substantive 
annexed, as in Aristo ph. Vesp. 213, otrov oa-ov ffrixnv, as big {i. e. as small) as a 
drop, and hence it came to be used as = quantillum : we also find the simple 
offov with a defining genitive, Arrian, Indie. 29. 15, a-Tupavffiv offov rrt? x,^pris. 
The parallels adduced by Wetstein and Lösner do not support the phrase öVo» 
oVflv, but the simple fjt.iKpcv oaov. Compare however Is. xxvi. 20. 


also in Eev. xxi. 11, TroXt? e^ovo-a Tr}v Bo^av rod 6eov, not ''great 
glory," but strictly " the glory (glorious brightness) of God," 
see Ewald in loc ; 1 Th. iv. 16, adXTrcy^ Oeov, not "great ov far- 
sounding trumpet " (crdXTny^ (pcovrj^; fieyaXTj^;, Mt. xxiv. 31), but 
" God's trumpet," i. e., truw/pet sounding at God's command, — or, 
more generally (since the word has not the article), such a 
trumpet as is used in the service of God (in heaven) ; Eev. 
XV. 2, KiOdpaL Tov 6eov, harps of God, such as sound in heaven 
{to the praise of God), compare 1 Ch. xvi. 42. 

The commentators have long been agreed that in Kom. i. 
16, hvvafXL^ 6eov signifies God's power (power in which God 
works) ; and there is no ground for charging Bengel with having 
regarded this as a Hebraistic periphrasis because he adds the 
explanation " magna et gloriosa." He merely brings into relief, 
in his usual manner, two qualities which a " virtus Dei " will 
possess, adding a reference to 2 C. x. 4. 

Lastly, d(TT6lo<i to) Oeo), used of Moses in A. vii. 20, is 
rather an expression of intensity than a substitute for the super- 
lative degree : it must strictly be rendered heautiful for (before) 
God, in the judgment of God, which is indeed equivalent to 
admodum formosus (compare 2 C. x. 4^). Exactly in the same 
manner are CJN'ipi^? and njn^ "•pap used in Hebrew,^ — compare 
Gen. x. 9, Jon. iii. 3 (LXX, iroXt^ fieydXr} tu> deo)) ; ^ only this 
use of the dative is not in itself a Hebraism.* 

Haab (p. 162) most erroneously maintains that even the word 
Xpto-rds is sometimes joined to a substantive merely to intensify its 
ordmary meaning : e.g. in Kom. ix. 1,2 C. xi. 10, ak-rfiua Xpia-rovj 
ev Xpto-ro), the most unquestionable truth. Some have interpreted 
6pr](rK€La twv ayyiXuiv, Col. ü. 18, on the same principle, as mean- 
ing cultus perfectissimus : compare 2 S. xiv. 20, a-o^ia dyyeXov. 

Rem. Of the superlative strengthened by irdvTwv -^ we find only 
one example in the N. T., viz. Mk. xii. 28, Trpioryj iravTinv. Compare 
Aristoph. Av. 473. 

^ Compare also Sturz, Zonarce glossce sacrce, P. II. p. 12 sqq. (Grimnioe 

2 Ocsen. Lfihrg. ]). 695. [Kalisch, Ilebr. Gr. I. 199.] 

3 Sec Fischer, PtoIuhh. 231 sqq., Wolle, De usu it abufm av%ri(nui nomi- 
num divinor. sacrcp., i» his Comment, de Parentheai sacra, p. 143 sqcj. 

* Compare Ileind. Plat. SojjIi. 336, Ast, Plat. Le[ß<j. p. 479 a. 
'" Weber, Demoath. p. 548. 


Section XXXVII. 


1. In expressing the day of the week eh is regularly used 
in the place of the ordinal tt/dwto? : ^ Mt. xxviii. 1, et? fiiav 
aaßßdrcüV Mk. xvi. 2, 7r/)&)t Tr}9/tta 9 aaßßdrwv L. xxiv. 1, 
Jo. XX. 1, 19, A. XX. 7, 1 C. xvi. 2. The examples which have 
been cited from Greek authors as analogous to this merely 
prove that eh is used to denote the fi,rst member in partitions 
and enumerations,"' some such word as hevrepo^ or aWo^ follow- 
ing, e. g. Her. 4. 161, Thuc. 4. 115, Herod. 6. 5. 2 sqq.^ Here 
eh no more stands for Trpwro^; than in Latin unus stands for 
prhmis, when it is followed by alter, tertius, etc. (Compare 
also Kev. ix. 12 withxi. 14, and G. iv. 24.) In Her. 7. 11. 8, 
however, eh retains its proper meaning 7i7uis ; probably also in 
Paus. 7. 20. 1, where Sylburg renders it by ^tiia} This use of 
eh for 7rpcoTo<; is Hebraistic ^ (as to the Talmud see Wetstein I. 
544 ; in the LXX compare Ex. xl. 2, Num. i. 1, 18, Ezr. x. 16 
sq., 2 Mace. xv. 36) : classical Greek affords a parallel in com- 
binations of numbers, as el? Kal rpLrjKoaro^ Her. 5. S9,one and 
thirtieth. But we use the cardinal in a similar way (for brevity, 
in the first instance) in expressing the year or the page, in the 
year eighteen, page forti/, etc.^ 

For the cardinal one the singular noun is sometimes used alone, 
as in A. xviii. 11 iKaOia-^v iviavrov Koi /xrjva<; «^ (Joseph. Antt. 
15. 2. 3), Kev. xii. 14 rpec^crat €K€L Kaipov (contrast Ja. iv. 13). 
But there is no ellipsis in such cases (compare § 26. 1), since 
the singular itself expresses unity. A similar usage is found in all 

•^ [In Mk. xvi. 9 we have -rpurr, e-ußßoiTov.] 

2 Weber, Demosth. p. 161. 

' Georgi, Vind. 54 sqq. Foertsch also {Observ. in Lysiam, p. 37) has ouly 
been able to adduce passages of this kind. On Diog. L. 8. 20 see Lobeck, 
Aglaopham. p. 429. 

* In Chislmll, Antiq. Asiat, p. 159, ^<« t^,- ßovXr.i is rendered die concilii 

* Ewald, Krit. Gr. 496. [Gesen. Hehr. Gr. p. 196 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Hehr. 
Gr. I. 276.] 

^ [On TKractpuKuiVixaToi A. xxvü, 27, 33 (for the more usual nffffapaKcith.), see 
Lob. p. 409, where Dion. H. VII. 12. 1338, Plut. Vit. Cat. III. 46, al., are quoted: 
compare also the Ionic Ticr(npi;xa.iViKXTei, Her. 1. 84. — It may be mentioned here 
that the tennination •'rxäffio; does not occur in the N. T. : the later -TX«<r/<w» 
(Lob. p. 411) is found Mk. x. 30, L. viii. 8, xviii. 30. See also A. Buttmann, p. 30. ] 


2. We meet with an abbreviated use of the ordinal in 2 P. 
ii. 5, oySoov Ncoe . . . i(f)ii\a^€, JVoah as the eighth,!, e., Noah 
with seven others. So in Plat. Zegg. 3. 695 c, Xaßoov t^v ap^v^ 
ۧ8ofxo<;- Plutarch, Felop. c. 13, et? olKtav BoSeKaro^ Ka- 
TekOcov Appian, Pzm. p. 12 (2 Mace. v. 21)} Greek authors 
usually add avro^ -, see Kypke II. 442, Matth. 469. 9 (Jelf 
^^Q. 3, Don. p. 462). 

3. When the cardinals are repeated, they stand for distri- 
butives, as in Mk. vi. 7, hvo Svo rjp^aTo äirocrreWeiv, linos mi- 
sit, two and tiuo. For this Greek writers use KaTci or ava Bvo 
(Kriig. p. 80, Jelf 161, Don. p. 514) : the latter of these occurs 
e.g. in L. x. 1,^ and in Mk. vi. 7 (cited above) D has the same 
as a correction of Bvo Bvo.^ This repetition of the cardinal is 
properly Hebraistic,* and is the simplest mode of expressing 
the distributive numeral: compare Lob. Pathol, ip. 184. Yet 
isolated instances of a similar kind occur in Greek (poetry), e. g., 
^schyl. Fers. 981, /jLvpla /mvpla, that is, Kara fjivptdBaf; ', and 
there is an analogous combination in Mk. vi. 39, 40, eireja^ev 
avTOL<; avaKklvau iravTa'^ avpLirocrua a v jjuir 6 er i a . . . aveire- 
aov TTpaacal irpaaLai. 

The following combinations are peculiar : dm d<i e/cao-ro?, Rev. 
xxi. 21, and els Kaff els (or Kaöels), Mk. xiv. 19, Jo. viii. 9 (like 
(V Kttö' eV) ; also 6 KaO" et?, Rom. xii. 5 (3 Mace. v. 34). Greek 
^v^iters use /ca(9' em (1 C. xiv. 31, E. v. 33), giving to the prepo- 
sition its proper government. Compare however dva reWapes Plut. 
j^m. 32 (but see Held), els Ka(9ers (Bekker writes Kaöets) Cedren. 
II. 698, 723, ets Trap els Leo, Tact. 7. 83, and the simple Kadus 
Theophan. contin. p. 39 and 101 : other examples are cited from 
later writers by Wetstein (I. 627), see also Interp. ad Lucian. iS'^- 
Ic&c. 9. In these phrases the preposition simply plays the part of 
an adverb (Herm. De Partie, av, p. 5 sq.) : Döderlein's view^ is 

^ Compare also Schaff. Plutarch V. 57, Demosth. I. 812. 

^ For this «v« tlie Syriac version always repeats the cardinal ; e. g. Mk. vi. 
40, «va l^cccri,, ]}1d \\Kq^ ^i ■ V> kj ■ t • V)>^ [Covvpcr, Syr. Gr. p. 102.] 
In Acta Apocr. 92 we find «v« }vo ^vo. 

^ [Kara dvo also occurs : 1 C. xiv. 27.] 

* See Gesen. Lc/m/. ]). 703 : ctompaio Gen. vii. 3, 9, and Leo Gramm, p. 11 
(a quotation from (Jen. l. c). [Gesen. J/ebr. Or. p. 196 (Bagster), Kalisch I. 276. 
This usage is found in modern (Jreek : see Mullach, Villa, p. 331, Sophocles, 
Or. p. 142.] ' ^ 1 > I 

^ Pr. dt BrachyloQia Serm. (Jr. et hat. p. 10 (Erlang. 1831). 


4. The -sv ell-known rule that in combinations of nunil)ers 
Kai is commonly inserted when the smaller number precedes, 
and not otherwise^ (compare 1 C. x. 8, Jo. vi. 19, A. i. 15, vii. 
14, xxvii. 37, Kev. iv. 4, xix. 4^), must not be too rigidly 
pressed, — at all events as regards tlie latter part of it.^ Ex- 
ceptions are met wdth everywhere : in the N. T., at any rate, 
there are some which admit of no doubt, as Jo. ii. 20, reo-aapd- 
Kovra KoX ef ereatv (without any variant), v. 5, rpuiKovra koI 
oKTco err) (on preponderant authority), G. iii. 17, L. xiii. 11,"^ 16, 
A. xiii. 20, Eev. xi. 2. Similar examples occur occasionally in 
Greek writers, as Her. 8. 1, eUoai koX kirrd- Thuc. 1.29, kßho- 
fiiJKovra KoX irevre' Dion. Hal. IV. 2090, o^horjKovTa koI rpm. 
In the LXX compare 1 K. ix. 28, xv. 10, 33, xvi. 23, 28, Gen. 
xi. 13: in Jud. x. 4 Tischendorf has rptaKovra teal Evo viol and 
TpLOLKovja Svo TTcoXof? iu tlic samc verse.^ 

5. If eTrdvcj is joined to a cardinal to express ahove, more 
than, the cardinal is not governed in the genitive, but is placed 
in the case required by the verb of the sentence : Mk. xiv. 5, 
TrpaOrjvaL iirdvco TpiaKoaccov hr}vapL(DV' 1 C. xv. 6, ^(j)6r] iiravcj 
irevTaKoaloi^ dhe\<^oh. Greek writers use the following w^ords 
in a precisely similar manner, that is, without any influence on 
case: eXarrov, Plat. Zcgr/. 9. 856 d, firj eXarrov SeKa err) ye- 
jovoras:- Thuc. 6. 95 ; TrXeoz^, Pausan. 8. 21. 1 ; irept, Zosim. 2. 
30 ; et? or eV, Appian, Civil 2. 96;^ f^^XP^> ^schin. Feds. Leg. 
37 (ed. Bremi) ; virep, Plut. Virt. Mul. 208 (ed. Lips.), Joseph. 
Antt. 18. 1. 5.^ In Latin such constructions as " occisis ad 

1 Matth, 140 ; compare the Inscriptions in Cliislml], Antiq. Asiat, p. 69 sq. 
(Don. p. 142.) 

^ Tliree numerals are sometimes thus combined : Eev. vii. 4, ixctTov Tia- 

accpäKotra, Tiffffiipii' xiv. 3, Xxi. 17, Jo, xxi. 11 Ikcctov ■7ri\irr,K0VTa, 7 pug. 

•^ Schoem. Isceus 332, Kriig. p. 78 (Jelf 165). 

* [In this verse xa.! is probably not genuine.] 

^ [On ^ixaT'tYTi, G. i. 18, Lightfoot remarks : •' This and the analogous forms 
of numerals occur frequently in the MSS. of Greek authors of the post-classical 
age, but in many cases are doubtless due to the transcribers writing out the 
•words at length, uhere they had only the numeral letters before them. The 
frequent occurrence of these forms however in the Tahuloe Heracleenses is a 
decisive testimony to their use, at least in some dialects, much before the 
Christian era. They are found often in the LXX." This is the regular form 
in modern Greek for the numbers from 13 to 19 (Mullach p, 179).] 

^ But compare Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. 68. 

7 See Lob. p. 410 sq., Gieseler in Rosenmüller, Repcrt. II. 139 sqq., Sommer 
in the Allg. Schulzeit. 1831, p. 963. 


liominum millibus quattuor" (Caes. Bell. Gall. 2. 33), in the 
historians, are sufficiently familiar. (Jelf 780. Ohs.) 

Rem. 1. That the neuters Sevrcpov, rptrov, sometimes signify 
far the second time, third time, it is unnecessary to observe. These 
are occasionally combined with tovto, as in 2 C. xiii. 1, rptrov 
rovro epxop-at, this is the third time that I come, or / am now coming 
for the third time ; compare Her. 5. 76 riraprov rovro. 

Rem. 2. The numeral adverb k-n-raKi^ is once replaced by the 
cardinal, in the phrase Iws ißSoixrjKovra.Ki's iirrd, Mt. xviii. 22, 
seventy times seven (times) ; compare Gen. iv. 24 (LXX) and y2K^ in 

Ps. cxix. 164 (instead of D-Dya V^^), and see Ewald p. 498. The 

strict meaning of this phrase would be seventy times (and) seven, i.e. 
seventy-seven times, which would not suit the passage. That we 
must not construe ews with cTrra but with ißSo/jLrjK. is shown by the 
preceding cws cTrraKt?.! 

How variously the LXX express the numeral adverbs, the fol- 
lowing passages will show : Ex. xxxiv. 23, Dt. xvi. 16, 2 K. vi. 10, 
Neh. vi. 4,2 2 S. xix. 43. 


Section XXXVIII. 


1. As transitive verbs in the active voice not unfrequently 
assume an intransitive (apparently a reflexive) meaning, so, con- 
versely, we find transitive (causative) verbs formed from in- 
transitives; — sometimes as a result of composition (e.g. Siaßat- 
veiv H.xi.29, Trapepx^o-Oat L.xi. 42), sometimes by simple trans- 
ference, as fjLaSrjreveiv rcvd^ Mt. xxviii. 19 (dpiafißeveiv tlvo, 
2 C. ii. 14 ?). ßao-iXeveiv nva 1 S. viii. 22, 1 K. i. 43, Is. vii. 6, 

^ [This is against Fritzsche, whose explanation is ' ' as far as 7 repeated 
70 times." Meyer defends the other rendering, 77 times, on the ground that 
iß'hofji.rix.ovrä.x.ii 'frrot. occurs Gen. iv. 24 (LXX) as a rendering of nyDtJ'l D"'y3C*, 

which can only mean "77 times :" this certainly seems a more weighty argu- 
ment than the mere probability that a very high number would be used. On 
the same side are Origen, (Augustine,) Bengel, and ICwald : in favour of 
"seventy times seven " see De Wette in loc, lileek, Syn. Erkl, II. 93.] 

^ [In this passage the numeral is omitted by tlie LXX.] 

' Compare also TpoirxTTnv tivx to commission some one, Act. Apocr. 
p. 172. 


1 Mace. viii. 13 (Lob. Ajax 385) : see § 32. 1.^ The transitive 
verbs which are often or mainly used intransitively belong in 
meaning to certain classes uf ideas, which may easily be learned 
from the following examples : a'yeiv (aycofjuev let us go), Trapayeiv 
Mt. XX. 30, 1 C. vii. 31, TrepLajecv A. xiii. 11, ßaWeiv A. xxvii. 
14 (fo throw oneself, to rush), iirißaXXetp Mk. iv. 37 {to heat 
in), aiToppiirT6Lv A. xxvii. 43 {to ihroiv oneself off), Kkivetv L. 
ix. 12 {to decline), eKKkiveiv E,om. xvi. 17, ävareWeiv, ßXaard- 
veiv, av^dveiv (Lob. Ajao: p. 89 sq., 382 sqq.); arpecfieiu A. vii. 
42, dvacTTpi^eiv A. v. 22 {to return), and especially iino-Tpe- 
(j)€iv; eKTpeireiv^ irapahihovaL Mk. iv. 29, 1 P. ii. 23 {to offer 
or give up oneself), dire'^eLv to he distant, iirky^eiv A. xix. 22 
{to detain oneself, i. e. remain), virepey^eiv, (nrevheLv. In the 
N. T. dvaKapLTTTeiv and irpoKOTneiv are always intransitive.^ In 
these examples (mainly of verbs denoting motion), as conceived 
by a Greek, there was no ellipsis of any word (not even of kavrov)) 
the verb denotes the action absolutely, he plunges into the sea, he 
turns round, but as there is no object named, the reader can only 
refer the action back to the subject.'^ 

We must not bring in here Jo. xiii. 2, rov ScaßoXov ßeßXrjKoro'^ 
ck TTjv Kaphiav, whether we follow the received text, or the reading 
adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. In any case ßaXkeiv has an 
active meaning ; see Kypke. 

Several verbs have a transitive (causative) meaning in some of 
their tenses, an intransitive in others. To this number belongs 
l(TTy]}jii with its compounds (Buttm. II. 207), of which verb we need 
only say that the 1 aor. passive crTaOrjvat (Mk. iii. 24) and the 
1 fut. araO-qa-o/xaL (Mt. xii. 25, 46) share in the intransitive meaning 
stand, and that in A. xxvii. 28 the 1 aor. Stao-rrfo-avTc«; signifies 
having gone back^ (compare o-T-qaas, Malal. 2. p. 35, for o-ras). Of 

^ [See also § 2. 1. ft. ] 

^ ['ExTpiTiiv is inserted by mistake : the active does not occur in the 
N. T., nor does it seem to be ever used intransitively. On -rapa^tlotai see 

"* [Others of these verbs (e.g. UxX/vs/») are "always intransitive in the N". T. " 

— A. Buttmann (p. 144) adds to the list v-rayu, iTavayu, Tpoa-yu, Ix'^j Ukt^vu, 

avaXvu, xecTaXvcd, iyiipu (imper. synpt) ; and remarks that some of these verbs, 
when their meaning has been thus modihed, take a new object — as 9rtptr,yi t«; 
Kuf^a; Mk. vi. 6 (Mt. ii. 9, Ph. iv. 7).] 

* See on the whole Bos, Ellips. p. 127 sqq., Matth. 495, Bernh. p. 839 sq., 
Krug. p. 154 sq., Poppo, Thuc. I. 186, Fritz. 3fark p. 138 [Jelf 359, Don. 
p. 425 sqq., Green, Gr. p. 185 : and see below § 64. 5]. On ^/^cv«/ and its 
compounds in particular see Jacobs, Phllostr. p. 363 ; on ^a/>s;^;£/», Ast, Plat. 
PoUt. p. 470, Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. I. 405. 

* [Should we not rather refer this to § 64. 5, supplying rr,i »«y»? See 


fjivo) even the present tense is used intransitively in H. xii. 15, from 
the LXX (//. 6. 149).^ — In 1 P. ii. 6, Trcpu^ni iv rfj ypacfifj, is con- 
tained ill the Scri^jt'ure, the verb is rather passive than intransitive : 
compare Joseph. Aiitt. 11. 4. 7, Malal. 9. 216, 18. 449, and see 
Krebs, Ohserv. 198.2 

On the impersonal use of (the 3 pers. sing, of) certain verbs, as 
ßpovra, Aeyet, cfirjcri, see § 58. 9. 

2. The middle voice (of transitive verbs ^) refers back the 
action to the agent (Don. p. 433 sqq., Jelf 362), — either 

a. Simply, as the direct object, as XovofiaL I luasli onyself, 
KpvTTTo/jLai, I conceal myself {^o. viii. 59), dira'y^oixai I hang 
myself (Mt. xxvii. 5), TrapacrKevd^o/jiat (1 C. xiv. 8):* or 

A. Buttm. p. 47. In modern Greek la-Txf/iv is in regular nse as an intransitive 
aorist : perhaps a faint passive force may be observed in most of the instances 
in which it occurs in the N. T.] 

1 [On Mt. xxiv. 32, Mk. xiii. 28, see § 15, s. v. (pCoj.] 

^ [With Lachmann's reading -^ipiix'-' ^ ypct.(pri, compare h Wia-roXh -ynpnT- 
X^v ovTui 2 Mace. xi. 22, o vof/.o? i>/u.uv -npti^^n Ei\ JSicod. c. 4, u? h -Trupd.- 
loa-is 'pripnx,it Eus. H. E. 3. 1 (quoted with others by Grimm, Wilkii Clavis 
s, V. ). A. Buttmann refers to liis examination of this passage in Stud. u. Krit. 
1858, p. 509. This use of -7fiptix,co is not noticed by Eost and Palm or by 
Liddeli and Scott.] 

"^ See L. Küster, De vero usu verhorum medlorum apud Grcecos, and J. Clerici 
Diss, de verbis Grcecorum mediis, both reprinted in the work of Dresig mentioned 
below : for a more rational treatment see Herrn. Emend. Hat p. 178, Bernh. p. 
342 sqq., Rost p. 573 sqq., Krug. p. 162 sqq. See especially Poppo, Progr. de 
Grcecorum verbis viediis, passivis, deponentibus rite discernendis (Frankf. on 
Oder, 1827), and Mehlhorn's corrections in his review of the work in Jahn's 
Jahrb. 1831, I. 14 sqq. ; Sommer in Jahn's Jahrb. 1831, II. 36 sqq. ; J. H. 
Kistemaker, De origine ac vi verborum depon